random rants and references

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.