random rants and references

My last post covered the votes taken on amendments to the CIRA Senate Bill S.2611, but missed one significant roll call vote and also missed a voice vote on wage provisions.

I should have given special notice to Roll Call Vote 127 on 17May06 for an amendment by Senators Vitter, Santorum and others : "To strike the provisions related to certain undocumented individuals." This would have completely removed the bill's amnesty provisions for all illegal immigrants. Needless to say, it failed to pass (by a vote of 66-33), with Senator Specter voting against it and for amnesty. Senator Santorum voted in favor of removing the amnesty provisions.

The other item missed is about the wages being mandated by the bill. This aspect is discussed well by Kate O'Beirne at NRO: "Among the little-noticed provisions in the Senate bill is one that shatters the economic rationale for millions of new unskilled, affordable foreign workers. .....
The bill extends Davis-Bacon “prevailing wage” provisions—typically the area’s union wage that applies only to construction on federal projects under current law—to all occupations (e.g. roofers, carpenters, electricians, etc.) covered by Davis-Bacon. So guest-workers (but not citizen workers) must be paid Davis-Bacon wage rates for jobs in the private sector if their occupation is covered by Davis-Bacon. Presumably because Senate Democrats’ union bosses thought this provision too modest, an amendment by Senator Barack Obama, approved by voice vote, extended Davis-Bacon wages rates to all private work performed by guest workers, even if their occupations are not covered by Davis-Bacon."

She also notes that : "While the White House is banking on winning House approval making new border enforcement measures contingent on legalizing millions of illegals, House Republicans remain firmly opposed to any amnesty and are confident that Hastert will not permit a bill that a majority of his party opposes to reach the floor. A large number of House Republicans could support a well-regulated guest worker program, with a more secure border and a workable workplace enforcement program, but they have no confidence the president’s recent commitment to serious enforcement measures matches their own."

This theme is present in other punditry and opinions that suggest a compromise bill based on no amnesty or citizenship path for existing illegal immigrants and focused on securing the border and enforcing the existing law against employers who hire illegals. The guest worker aspects might allow resident as well as new immigrants a chance to enter (or re-enter) as credentialed workers for temporary labor only and without a path to citizenship. Basically that is the House Bill with a guest worker feature and without the new "felon" provisions. I think that would be a good compromise but wonder if it can be done politically.

Also interesting is O'Beirne's observation about wages. The bad news it that the wages would be excessive for most employers and do damage to the economy - IF workers were really hired at those rates. The worse news is that it might discourage open legal immigration and employment while encouraging continued illegal immigration for all the same economic reasons that prevail today. Assuming continued lax enforcement of the laws, we would have legislated a new worst world of amnesty for existing lawbreakers and incentives for future lawbreaking.

In all of this legislating and opining, I do not see any meaningful public discussion of what future immigration policy is best suited to advance the national interest. Should the top priorty be importing day laborers from Mexico and Central America or should it be attracting the best highly skilled talent from the rest of the world? How much total immigration (of all and each type worker) do we need and can we assimilate over the near-mid future?

The President and the Senate are focused on a Mexican Expediency Program with dramatic and ill-understood immigration impacts. The House is focused on solving a Border Security problem and postponing the larger policy issues until the immediate critical problem is solved. The more the Senate discusses its bill, the wiser the House approach seems.

I've already stated my basic views on the pending Senate Bill S2611, C0mprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (CIRA). This post provides a record of voting on the more important (my selection) amendments and motions to table ( i.e. to reject an amendment). It also record the votes of our two Pennsylvania Senators, Specter and Santorum, who are voting rather differently on this issue. Senator Specter is a Sponsor of the bill, having sheparded it through his Judiciary committee.

The information ( and votes of other senators) can be found at U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes . You can also link from that site to all the bill data and text. The list starts with the first roll call vote and will be updated. (My personal interpretations are included parenthetically.)

Vote 121, 16May06 : "To prohibit the granting of legal status, or adjustment of current status, to any individual who enters or entered the United States in violation of Federal law unless the border security measures authorized under Title I and section 233 are fully completed and fully operational." ( This would require securing the border first, before granting amnesty (adjusting status) to illegal immigrants.) Result - Failed by 55 to 40 votes; Specter voted against it ; Santorum for it.

Vote 122, 16May06 : "To prohibit implementation of title IV and title VI until the President determines that implementation of such titles will strengthen the national security of the United States." ( A face-saver to allow those who voted Nay on 121 above to show they voted for a "national security" interest. The President has already made that determination in his speech.) Result - Passed by 79 - 16 ; both Specter and Santorum voted for it.

Vote 123, 16May06, to Table (defeat) amendment : "To prohibit aliens who are currently outside the United States from participating in the H-2C guestworker visa program." (Another attempt to restrain the bill, by limiting Guest Workers to those already in the country, failed). Result - Tabled by 69-28; both Specter and Santorum voted to Table.

Vote 124, 16May06, to Table amendment : " To reduce the number of H-2C nonimmigrants to 200,000 during any fiscal year." (This amendment won and reduces the size of the guestworker intake and removes the 20% increase in annual caps.) Result - Not Tabled by 79 - 18; Specter voted to Table; Santorum to Not Table. ( This was an important vote for some small amount of restraint; but Specter was one of only 18 to vote to grow the unskilled immigrant intake to over 100 million in 20 years, based on analysis of S.2611. This amendment may slow that growth from the original 100-200 million to a 40-90 million range.)

Vote 126, 17May06 : "To increase the amount of fencing and improve vehicle barriers installed along the southwest border of the United States." ( To provide a modicum of real border security.) Result - Passed by 83-16; both Specter and Santorum voted for it.

Vote 128, 17May06 : "To modify the conditions under which an H-2C nonimmigrant may apply for an employment-based immigrant visa." (This precludes convicted felons and other criminals from becoming guestworkers with a path to potential citizenship.) Result - Passed by50-48; Specter voted against; Santorum voted for it.

Vote 130, 18May06, to Table amendment : "To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity." ( by voting to table this, the Senate gives a financial reward as a bonus to amnesty for illegal immigrants. The rest of us get a big future tax bill to pay for it.) Result - Tabled by 50-49; Specter voted to Table (and give us the bill for rewarding illegal immigrants); Santorum voted to Not Table.

Vote 131, 18May06 : "To amend title 4 United States Code, to declare English as the national language of the United States and to promote the patriotic integration of prospective US citizens." Result - Passed by 63-34; both Specter and Santorum voted for it. (Another bill for English as the "common and unifying" language also passed 58-39)

Vote134, 18May06 : "To require aliens seeking adjustment of status under section 245B of the Immigration and Nationality Act or Deferred Mandatory Departure status under section 245C of such Act to pay a supplemental application fee, which shall be used to provide financial assistance to States for health and educational services for noncitizens. " (Not a big fee in view of what they get; but at least a fee.) Result - Passed 64-32; Specter voted against; Santorun voted for it.

Vote 135, 18May06, to Table amendment : "To prohibit H-2C nonimmigrants from adjusting to lawful permanent resident status." ( An attempt to prevent "Temporary Guest Workers" from converting to permanent residents with an easy path to citizenship. Also residents can bring more of their extended family legally into the US with green cards, compounding the size of the immigrant population coming in this way - all with an easy path to citizenship.) Result - Tabled by 58-35; Specter voted to Table; Santorum voted to Not Table. ( I really don't understand why we call them "temporary" workers given these votes.)

Well, that's where we are at the end of the first week of amending the Senate bill. A few good changes got made - some fencing will be included; the number of low-skill immigrants will only be 200,000 per year, instead of 325,000 with an automatic increase of 20% per year as in the original bill; and we won't take in convicted felons. But some really bad items stayed in the bill including a huge Social Security giveaway to existing illegal immigrants and not providing border security as a first priority.

Overall, not a good session from my perspective. Based on the role call votes, It seems Senator Santorum and I agree on most aspects of this issue.

UPDATE , 20 May 06. : I should have given special notice to Roll Call Vote 127 on 17May06 for an amendment by Senators Vitter, Santorum and others : "To strike the provisions related to certain undocumented individuals." This would have completely removed the bill's amnesty provisions for all illegal immigrants. Needless to say, it failed to pass (by a vote of 66-33), with Senator Specter voting against it and for amnesty. Senator Santorum voted in favor of removing the amnesty provisions.

So, how does the Mexican Government view President Bush's Immigration Reform plan? Well, It seems to be a two-pronged reaction: encouraging more and faster illegal border crossings while laying down a covering barrage of legal suits. At least that's the theme of this Yahoo! News article, Mexico Threatens Suits Over Guard Patrols :
"'If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people ... we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates,' Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez told a Mexico City radio station. He did not offer further details. .....

In Ciudad Juarez, Julieta Nunez Gonzalez, local representative of the Mexican government's National Immigration Institute, said Tuesday she will ask the government to send its migrant protection force, known as Grupo Beta, to more remote sections of the border.

Sending the National Guard 'will not stop the flow of migrants, to the contrary, it will probably go up,' as people try to get into the U.S. in the hope that they could benefit from a possible amnesty program, Nunez said."

Well, I guess they recognize an amnesty program regardless of what it's called by President Bush and the US Senate. They seem undeterred by our statements that immigrants who are here less than 2 years won't get amnesty. Could they think that no one will really be able figure out who is in the US for how long? Not a bad gamble considering the ICE has a large backlog of work just processing the current applicants.

I have been busy mending fences instead of blogging. (Real fences, I live on a horse farm and fence repair is an annual chore.) As I stretch aching muscles, I have to wonder: are there really jobs that no American will do? Which brings me to the issues of Immigration and Border Security. Not an easy topic to write about, since it can lead to a lot more "fence mending" with friends.

It's a complex issue that's not getting as full a discussion as it needs. So let's start with the President's address on Immigration Reform. It's a good speech and well presented; it does have some good ideas for increasing border security, such as sending the National Guard to the border, aiding and engaging state and local police efforts to arrest and detain illegal immigrants, and providing some real and virtual border fencing. While most of these ideas are not new, they could be useful components of new legislation and the President's interest in them is good. But, overall, I admit to being very discouraged by the speech.

The President seems more focused on establishing a Mexican Expediency Program than a National Immigration Policy. His speech seemed to basically endorse the current Senate Bill with the addition of six thousand National Guard troops on the Mexican Border, if only for a year. Unfortunately, he seems less interested in the House Bill, which has garnered more popular support and which focuses on border security and reducing the incentive for illegal immigration. That's a straightforward tough but doable job.

The Senate Bill and the President seek also to establish a temporary worker program coupled to an effective amnesty program for most resident illegal immigrants and, with little thought or discussion, to establish a new immigration template that will change dramatically the American social and economic demographic over the next 20 years. The primary discussion seems to be more about compassionate treatment of Mexican immigrants than about what we want America to become and how an Immigration policy can shape that desired future.

That's why I ask: are we seeking a National Immigration Policy or just a Mexican /Latino Immigrant Expediency Program? It's a vital question.

I fear the answer is that the politicians are trying to get a quick fix Expediency Program and will enact a potentially catastrophic National Policy as an unintended by-product.

What unintended consequences might be catastrophic? Start with the devastating analysis of the Senate Bill (S.2611), by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years: "If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States.
Much attention has been given to the fact that the bill grants amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants. Little or no attention has been given to the fact that the bill would quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the United States, raising, over time, the inflow of legal immigrants from around one million per year to over five million per year. The impact of this increase in legal immigration dwarfs the magnitude of the amnesty provisions."

And that is his "reasonable estimate"; the maximum allowed by the Bill is over 200 million new legal immigrants in twenty years, compared to less than 19 million under current law. Most of the new immigrants permitted by the Senate Bill would be low-skill, low-education workers or their families. In fact, the Senate seeks to allow 325,000 new low-skill immigrants each year, compared to 115,000 new high-skill workers each year - and these caps can rise by 20% each year. More specifics on the Senate Bill are here, along with this quote from Senator Sessions , referencing the above study,"Until now, most of us have focused on securing the border and deciding how to treat the illegal alien population already in the United States. Few, if any, of us have looked ahead to see what the long-term numerical impact of the bill would be.'"

There is more background information at the Heritage Foundation website, including another study on the economic impact of Senate bill that projects "increased government spending of $46 billion per year or more" due to the influx of low skill workers and their families, making the Senate immigration plan " the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years".

The Senate bill creates a legal immigration template for a dramatic shift in the American demographic from a high-skill population to a low-skill population. All done without any public debate. Do we really want to compete in the future high technology global economy by deliberately importing an undereducated workforce? My answer is a resounding No!

Do we want to give amnesty to illegal immigrants? Again, most Americans answer No! Even the President says he is against "Amnesty", but then defines it narrowly enough to allow him to propose an effective amnesty program that allows existing illegal immigrants to stay and be put on a path to citizenship. Too many others play by the rules and do not get that chance because they are not Mexican - even though they are highly skilled. This is neither fair, nor good policy for America. We do not need more high school and grade school dropouts.

The first priority is to secure the borders. National Guard troops will help; but six thousand are far too few. A temporary worker program is not essential to security and should be a completely separate initiative to be debated and defined after securing the border and after reducing the incentives for illegal immigration. The House bill does this.

The second priority is to enforce the laws against illegal immigrants and their employers. This does not mean deport anyone - just make it extremely hard for them to find work, go to schools or colleges without certifiable documentation. Do this and they will deport themselves and others will not come illegally. Remove the incentives for illegal immigration and it will slow significantly or stop - fence or no fence. It is essential to have very severe penalties for employment of illegal immigrants and to enforce the laws. Funds and authority can be given to states and local police to arrest and hold illegal immigrants when discovered and encourage their deportation. These people are not living in “shadows”; they are marching in public - because there is no consequence to be seen as an illegal. To reduce the attractiveness of illegal immigration, we need to remove the economic incentives and to increase to legal consequences for both the immigrant and the employer. The House bill does this; and there is no need to make anyone a felon to do it.

The third priority, coming only after establishing an effective system for the above two, is to begin the debate on a National Immigration Policy (not just a Mexican ExpediencyProgram) with the goal of bringing the best talent from the world into America; not with the hidden goal of bringing the unskilled and uneducated from Mexico and Central America. We are in an age of technology and innovation - we do not need to import more unskilled workers and their families; we need to import more talented and skilled workers.

As part of this comprehensive national immigration policy, we need to address the total amount and balance of immigration inflow desired from all countries; the need for assimilation and English language abilities; and whether we want only potential citizens or real temporary workers. It is not clear that we do want a policy of temporary workers separate from the immediate Mexican worker problem. Solve that, as above, and there may not be a need or any real national interest in a continuing temporary worker program except for rare high-skills.

One transition possibility is to consider some, but not all, existing illegal immigrants as candidates for a temporary worker program that would sunset after five years or so. They would have the option to self-identify and be granted truly temporary status, with limits based on job duration and national economic needs. The incentive to self-identify comes from the penalties and lack of work and social services resulting from the enforcement program. This aspect can soften the impact of immediate strict enforcement for a transition period only, but does not grant an automatic path to citizenship. Citizenship could be attained by a variety of means such as return to country of origin before applying or by substantial service to the nation, e.g. military service. Going to the back of the citizenship line must mean the real back of the line – behind the others who are waiting in line in other countries, some for many years already.

The immigration issue is serious and should be discussed and decided as a National Immigration Policy not as a Mexican/Latino Immigrant Expediency Policy. That should take time and be done as a major public debate with full disclosure of facts, projections and goals. It should not be done in haste as an undiscussed and poorly understood consequence of the Senate Bill.

But the Border Security Problem can be solved now and firmly. The Illegal Immigrant problem can be attacked with it by getting a handle on the existing illegal population and reducing the incentive for illegal immigration. That is what the House Bill does.

This is certainly a very debatable issue and I could be persuaded to change my assessment. However, my bottom line is simple; we need these actions. Pass the House Bill or a close version of it. Protect the Border and Enforce the Immigration Laws against both employers and illegal immigrants. Then, when that is done and an effective system in place, examine carefully and calmly what our National Policy should be for long term immigration and assimilation of future citizens.