Saturday, May 20, 2006
More on the Senate Immigration Votes
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 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.
