Victory '06: Ball in Bush's Court
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2006 — Comments (68) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I have said since November of last year that the election of 2006 would largely be decided on the state of affairs in Iraq. I stand behind that proposition today, although it must be noted by anyone who is paying attention that immigration is going to play an increasingly important role. The polls tell of a difficult tight-rope to walk, and the only safe course for Republicans in November involves action on the part of the Executive Branch.
More below...
By way of review this Rasmussen poll from May 7th reported the following conclusions:
Our national survey conducted on May 1-2, 2006 found that 67% of Americans favored an enforcement first policy (just 18% are opposed).
Among those who favor enforcement-first, 59% also favor a national policy goal that welcomes all immigrants except national security threats, criminals, and those who would come here to live off the U.S. welfare system.
Among those who oppose an enforcement first policy, just 50% favor such a welcoming policy goal.
A similar pattern is found on the question of earned citizenship opportunities for illegal immigrants. Fifty-three percent (53%) of Americans support such a proposal. There is virtually no difference in support for these proposals between those who favor or oppose enforcement-first policies.
* * *
There is one more piece of evidence that a welcoming policy is not incompatible with gaining control of the border and it comes from the small segment of the population (15%) that favors full amnesty for today's illegal immigrants. Even among this group, half (54%) favor an enforcement first policy.
Other survey data found that American voters were more likely to favor a Congressional candidate who emphasizes enforcement of existing laws rather than one who prefers expanding legal job opportunities for foreign workers.
Clearly, an enforcement-first policy is an electoral winner, and the current path-to-citizenship proposals (which I favor, generally) bring virtually nothing by way of political reward, and instead risk alienating a large swath of potential Republican voters. In an ideal world - that is to say, one in which 1986 had never happened - we might be able to reasonably discuss resolving both issues at once. At this point, however, it is clear that the process must be bifurcated.
This is important, so I will repeat it in case anyone is listening: the process must be bifurcated.
Somehow, some way, the public has got to feel that the border is under control before any of the programs. The correct approach to take, however, is a matter still up in the air. Polling on this question is mixed. On the one hand, polling from several months ago indicates generally strong support for a "barrier" between the United States and Mexico:
Sixty percent (60%) of Americans say they favor building a barrier along the border between the United States and Mexico to help reduce illegal immigration. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 26% are opposed to this approach
It should be noted that the extent of this "barrier" was apparently not noted in the poll question. However, in a more recent poll, a "wall" received very tepid support as an enforcement option:
When given a choice between three options, three-fifths (63%) say employer penalties are the most effective approach. Just 16% say using National Guard troops would be more effective. Thirteen percent (13%) say building a wall is the best approach.
It should also be noted that, while enforcement is clearly the first priority:
The survey asked participants to choose between two immigration bills. "One would improve control of the borders but do nothing about the status of working immigrants who are here illegally. The other would legalize the status of working immigrants who are here illegally but would do nothing to improve control of the border."
By a 63% to 19% margin, voters prefer the bill that controls the borders but does nothing about the status of illegal aliens.
There is broad-based support for a nationalization plan that follows the outline of the President's approach:
Sixty-one percent (61%) favor an earned citizenship policy approach "that would let illegal aliens eventually become citizens if they pay a fine for entering the country illegally, pay al back taxes, and learn to speak English." Again, those who prefer the enforcement-first approach share the majority view on this question.
Generally speaking, the rule of political success is that Congress is better off when it accomplishes something - it matters not what that something is, as long as people see bills getting passed, the perception is that the government is doing something, and incumbents in general will poll better. Conversely, it is generally politically costly to try something and lose. However, the current immigration debate may be one of the occasional exceptions to the rule. At this point, the best possible solution, and the one that would enjoy the broadest level of support from both the base and the swing voters, would be to let the Senate bill die, and not provoke a bitter and protracted fight over a wall that would stretch from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf. The best course of action for the current Congress may well be to do nothing.
In order for this to work, however, the Administration has got to get serious about the border security policy which requires no political fight and which enjoys the broadest level of support: Employer enforcement action. It is worth remembering how dismal the Bush administration's record on Employer Enforcement has been:
"Internal" enforcement of employer sanctions under Clinton was patchy but not wholly lax.
For instance, in the years 1995, 1996, and 1997, there were between 10,000 and 18,000 worksite arrests of illegals annually. In the same years about 1,000 employers were served notices of fines for employing them. Under the Bush administration, worksite arrests fell to 159 in 2004 when there was also the princely total of three notices of intent to fine served on employers.
Clearly, this cannot continue, and if the Bush administration lacks the willpower to dramatically raise both the frequency, severity and publicity of enforcement actions, they will be forcing the GOP-led Congress to take ill-advised and potentially politically costly action. Given the Administration's rhetoric, however, it appears that the Administration has gauged the political calculus on this question very poorly, and unless something changes very soon, this could well be the path we are headed down.
In that event, the GOP-led Congress will have no realistic choice but to allow the current immigration bill to die in the House, and start over again with an enforcement-only policy. Given that Harry Reid has already promised to filibuster any such move, and it is doubtful that the Republicans have the votes in the Senate to break such a filibuster, the Bush administration is realistically consigning the Congress to a course of action in which legislative failure is actually the best possible outcome. In an election year that hangs in the balance, it is highly possible that such a choice would be disastrous.
A large portion of the determination about what kind of Congress President Bush will have in the last two years of his Presidency will depend on the willingness of his Administration to get serious, in a big time hurry, about cracking down on employers who hire illegal aliens, and to display patience with Congress when it comes to passing a "comprehensive" immigration reform package. The threat of a Democrat-led Congress is very real, and it would effectively mean the end of any agenda you might like to advance, and the beginning of endless hearings and commissions about 2002 and 2003, and the very real possibility that funding for the war will be yanked posthaste.
If this is a future that you'd like to avoid, it's time to get on the ball.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Perfidy from Providence:
Liberal Little Lincoln Tells A Lie — Comments (41) »
Victory '06: Ball in Bush's Court 68 Comments (0 topical, 68 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
If the employers don't swing, it's got no ring.
If the employers don't hang, it's got no bang.
If the employers don't pay, it's all just hay.
If the employers don't get jail, it will fail.
I was not aware of the decrease in employer enforcement. A couple of points:
- The polls referring to a Wall might not be as enthusiastically received as those referring to a Fence. I did not check the wording on the Rasmussen polls cited, but I think there could be some points difference in public opinion between the two. BTW: a photo of the border showing just open land would perhaps make it clear to the voting public that there are places where no structural barriers exist at all. We're not talking minefields and machine gun nests here.
- I have to say that I don't believe that the House bill's felony provision is necessary. Why not use fines instead of prison sentences? The result will be the same: a small number will be deported and a large portion will go back voluntarily and perhaps re-enter through legal means.
- I am no proponent of making more laws in this country, but an amendment doubling punishment and fines for illegals would perhaps make sense. I suppose it would be the same as fines in construction zones or other crimes now classified as hate crimes. In other words, not too difficult to implement using the existing Federal system at least.
Let the Democrats filibuster building a fence, and watch them loose future elections until they change their minds!
but I wish the Immigration Debate Logo™ displayed Old Glory with the 'field of stars' on the left and the wind blowing from left to right.
Coincidentally, from left to right is also the direction of the shifting political tide of the American electorate, and the direction the immigration debate is headed.
O'Reilly had a DA from outside Philly a week ago and he talked about his current experience with the Bush Administration and ICE. They received a complaint about a builder from the local carpenters union. The went to the building site and found 18 illegal aliens, one with a warrant for child sexual assault from FL. They called ICE for them to take custody and export and were told that ICE was not interested. He said ICE told him "if they are mexican, do not bother us again". They said to release the aliens.
So much for the President's promise to end the "catch and release" policy. For some reason, this administration has absolutely no interest in spanish speaking illegals.
Read this from townhall.com Why would anyone believe what Bush and the Senate promise when the first 5 1/2 years were like that.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/michellemalkin/2002/10/30/164775.ht
ml
And every week there are hundreds more like it. They broke the law coming here, committed identity theft, why would we think they would respect this country or our laws in their daily lives. They want limited increases in the talented immigrants such as engineers, doctors, I think H2 visas but want millions of landscapers and house cleaners. That make sense.
that "the voters generally support the President's proposals." In fact, the first thing Bilbray said after his election was that the voters had sent a message to the President & the Senate about illegals.
Also, those polls are INCREDIBLY misleading, in that voters WHO REALLY CARE about immigration are frothing-at-the-mouth mad, |& voters who are mostly INDIFFERENT to the immigration issue "support earned citizenship," etc.
Intensity counts.
Clearly, an enforcement-first policy is an electoral winner, and the current path-to-citizenship proposals (which I favor, generally) bring virtually nothing by way of political reward, and instead risk alienating a large swath of potential Republican voters.
I don't think this is "clear" at all.
I think what is clear is that opinion polls show Americans understandably worried about border security. But whether or not this translates into an advantage for one party or another is more murky.
Why? Because it's not enough to tell a pollster you're opposed to amnesty, or favor "enforcement first". You've actually got to hold these positions fervantly enough to require yourself to pull the lever for the candidate who shares your position.
Now, I have no doubt millions of voters will require themselves to vote in this manner (for the candidate favoring the House-GOP approach, that is). I also have no doubt that the vast bulk of them will be voting for incumbents -- especially in deep red districts.
But I also believe that many millions more voters who favor the House-GOP approach don't favor it with sufficient zeal to pull the level against that squishy (on immigration) but otherwise nice fellow who just got the district $30 million for a new research center (and, FWIW, whose office recently straightened out Uncle Harry's Social Security snafu). The power of incumbency is, alas, very very real.
My guess at this early juncture is that the GOP keeps both houses of Congress, and that the immigration debate doesn't result in big changes one way or another in the status quo. I furthermore predict no bill will reach the president's desk.
At the end of the day, it may perhaps be that the tough, restrictionist line helps the Republican party maintain control of the House, in that it makes it difficult for a Democrat to pry away a seat from an incumbent who might otherwise be vulnerable because of, say, Iraq. I'd be willing to bet my last hanging chad, however, than any such electoral advantage is very fleeting, and will be paid back with interest in future elections by Hispanic voters with long memories.
Polls I've seen show legal Hispanics views on illegal immigration are about like everybody else's-- they resent it.
Also, Bilbray was no incumbent! You may have a better feel than Bilbray for why he won, but Bilbray says that there were 3 reasons: 1) immigation; 2)immigration & 3) immigration.
"in that voters WHO REALLY CARE about immigration are frothing-at-the-mouth mad"
This is a PERFECT issue to use to manipulate voters. Just don't expect anything to change after the election except a bunch of smoke and mirrors at the border.
I think the ball is in the court of the politicians running for office in 2006. I wish President Bush pushed his administration harder to enforce immigration law. With only 5 months to go until the election I do not expect President Bush to get this done. I think the GOP in the House can help themselves in November if they defeat the bill sent to them from the Senate. I want to see something like the Pence proposal get signed into law before November. I am afraid that a fortess only bill could do a lot of damage to efforts to get hispanic voters to vote Republican.
I agree with the concept of securing the border, but there are 12 to 15 Million illegals that would still be in this country after securing the border.
What do you do with them, and why is it acceptable to "kick the can" down the road on this aspect of the illegal immigration issue?
If the Immigration Hawks don't agree with the president and his plans to deal with this aspect of the issue by implementing a guest worker program, what do they propose? Is the only answer on the table one that believes that increased fines and potential jail terms will cause illegals to go home? If that approach fails, would the American public support going into say Nebraska, and Iowa and shutting down the meat packing industry when inland immigration enforcement actions cause massive roundups and deportment's? In my view this is very doubtful.
The employers will clean out their illegals themselves. All that is needed is the NATIONAL WILL to get serious about this cancerous issue. No jobs? They'll deport themselves.
Keep saying that, and you might slip and type "into voting against their economic interests."
Steve, I've answered this before, and while some people ask that question merely as a rhetorical point to try to silence the opposition, I'll assume you're asking genuinely until I see evidence to the contrary.
The answer is simple: We don't need to do anything about the illegals already here. The only reason they come, and the only way they're able to stay, is that they can find work. If we dry up the jobs, they'll stop coming, and they'll go home.
It's much easier to leave the US than it is to get in. Mexico's side of the border is uncontrolled. They can show themselves the door when they get uncomfortable and give up tryign to find illegal jobs.
They'll gradually be gone just by attrition.
I'm no analyst, but I think that it's acceptable to kick the can down the road on that issue because people will accept it. I would.
Again, I'm no analyst. My polling pool is too small to be representative of anything. But people I know, myself included, hear truth in George Bush's statements to the effect that these are just people who want for their family what you want for yours.
I live in Charlotte, NC. What many people don't realize is that Charlotte is a major ground in this debate. As pointed out in a Newsweek story a few issues back, Charlotte is one of the top cities in the country for illegal immigrants. What I'm getting at is that I know people who are here ... less than legally. In the abstract, I understand the desire to clean up immigration.
However, in practice, I think of specific people I know that frankly, I'd be sad to see go. They do just want a better life, and they can get it here. If I were in Mexico, I wouldn't be in Mexico I'd be in Charlotte, if you see what I mean.
Rationally I know we can't allow the border to continue as it is. I want it fixed. I want it secure. So do most of the people I know. But we simply aren't polarized on the issue of those who are already here.
So as a voter issue, I think it is more than plausible that one could turn out votes with a strong position on securing the border while dragging feet on the issue of deporting existing illegals. Especially at the local and state level somewhere like Charlotte.
I doubt we have the will, political, economic or other wise to actually have meaningful enforcement actions, that's my issue. The goal here in my mind is two fold, secure the border, and convert somewhere in the region of 5 to 8 Million illegal workers who don't support society now into tax paying members of society.
There was a piece on 60 minutes a few weeks ago, yea it was biased but it was on the air, of a former INS agent who had been invited into Nebraska due to complaints by Unions in the Meat Packing business, he talked about his experiences with enforcement actions there. After something like 3500 illegals had been rounded up, and pressure had been placed on Washington, he and his team were invited to leave Nebraska once the economic impact started to kick in.
My point is that in the meat packing, chicken processing, and a few other industries, the majority of the work force is illegal. We don't need new laws, new border security or anything else right now to put a dent in the problem, if those that thing fear of prosecution will work are right, just start inland sweeps next week.
My contention is that the Immigration Hawks don't have the stomach for doing the right thing and truly enforce the laws on the books right now, so why pretend? By all means secure the border, but why pretend that the Federal Government is willing to stand up to special interests that rely on illegal immigrant labor right now. The American people were lied to in '86 with Simpson/Misouli, and will be lied to again this time if we don't deal with both the flow of illegals into the country and the root cause of why they are coming here.
So build a Fence, secure the border, the problem is solved...nudge nudge wink wink.
The answer is simple: We don't need to do anything about the illegals already here. The only reason they come, and the only way they're able to stay, is that they can find work. If we dry up the jobs, they'll stop coming, and they'll go home.
We don't need "to do anything"? Are you serious? How do you propose to "dry up the jobs"? Implement a biometric ID system? Fund a massive increase in workplace enforcement? Stiffen the laws to mandate jail time for employer offenders? Maybe some of these strategies would work well, but they certainly constitute "doing something".
My contention is that the Immigration Hawks don't have the stomach for doing the right thing and truly enforce the laws on the books right now, so why pretend?
That's my contention, too. At the very least they don't have the stomach for spending the money (which translates into a) increasing the deficit, b) increasing taxes; or c) cutting other spending to free up dollars) that's going to be required.
Actually, that 60 Mintues piece you cite featured an interview with Tancredo. As much as I disagree with the congressman on the issue, I give him a ton of credit for being realistic, and for not BSing the voters. Ed Bradley pressed him on the budget issue with regard to border and immigration law enforcement, and Tancredo basically said (I'm paraphrasing) we're spending waaayy to little, and we should spend "whatever it takes".
Call me cynical, but until somebody introduces a bill allocating, say, $50 or $60 billion extra per year on enforcement, I predict with utter confidence we'll continue to enjoy plenty of black market immigration.
The restrictionists are correct: the powers that be are not serious about stopping illegal immigration. What they fail to recognize, however, is that that House Republicans for the most part should be counted among the ranks of the unserious.
There is no plan to deal with 12 to 16 Million illegals here now, not counting families.
The plan I used to deride as the "Round them up, send them home", will now be known as the "When Pigs Fly" plan.
"When Pigs Fly"
INS will raid Tyson chicken processing plants
INS will raid ConAgra meat processing plants
INS will raid companies who have a statistically high number of "Unmatched" SSN's to employees
INS will raid any number of "Employment Centers" at many places in Los Angeles and around the country.
The Federal Government will cut off all funding to cities and towns that declare themselves to be "Sanctuary" cities.
There is no need for new laws, just enforce the ones on the books right now. Immigration Hawks want to make the stick bigger, fine make it bigger, but a bigger stick won't do squat if it's not used.
This is directed to you and SteveLA:
We immigration hawks would LOVE just to see today's laws enforced, and have the stomach to do it. I, and many like me, would just like to see President Bush enforce today's laws, the way Bill Clinton did after Wilson/187 put a scare into his political advisors (did he have any that weren't political? heh).
Follow up on tips that an employer is hiring illegals, check up on 'day laborer gathering sites,' and be willing to audit and raid worksites nationwide and all industries. That's all I ask.
I think a fence or a wall would be good for national security, but would not be a solution to the illegal immigration problem. Just enforce the laws we have today. A nice, moderate position.
First off, you're clearly ignorant of today's situation. The INS was disbanded when DHS was formed. Its enforcement arm was moved to ICE, so update your canned rhetoric.
Second, it's not the hawks' fault that you pro-guest worker people in the White House are so grossly negligent on that. President Clinton could do it, so Bush has no excuse.
Neil my greatest fear is that Immigration Hawks will succeed at a half measure at best, only securing the border and not dealing in an effective manner with the reason why illegals are coming to our country.
Illegals are coming to this country for one reason only, and it ain't watching Paris Hilton commercials. It's jobs, money and a better life for their families. We the greedy, cheap North Americanos want our cheap houses, our cheap food along with everything else we get on the backs of illegal immigrants. We pay a hidden tax every day by supporting businesses that use illegal immigrants off the books, in every part of our every day life. From crowded schools to crowed and failing hospitals all from the illegals working off the books at slave wages.
We either get serious about the issue or we don't. Securing the border is one step, but as a society, we have to decide if we want to continue the exploitation of cheap illegal labor or not. I fear that corporate America and the politicians they control will only do enough to make the American people feel good about this issue and not deal with it effectively. The issue is white hot with the American people right now, if a half measure of securing the border is all that happens now, in two years time the attention of the public will be turned to some other issue and nothing else will be done, that's the nature of things.
It's clear that you have some strange birth defect, where 'go after the employers' cannot be seen by your eyes.
That's why you keep railing about those immigration hawks having no solution, and keep obsessing with border security. You obviously just can't SEE when I and the rest OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN talk about how we need to increase interior enforcement.
I mean, considering these comments started with #2 in this thread, there's no other explanation that is favorable to you.
to be.
(Posted this elsewhere but copied it here because I think it is on point.)
I'm not intimately familiar with ICE processes, hardly familiar at all, but I'm very familiar with bureaucracy. If the enforcement people learn that they won't be backed in enforcement efforts, they stop enforcing, but they don't stop coming to work and getting paid.
Just letting them know that they are free to do their jobs sets you on the way towards a "tipping point" strategy in controlling illegal immigration. You don't have to get all of them, and you don't have to, probably shouldn't, start with the worst ones. Just using existing staff and resources to start getting the "broken windows fixed" and the "fare jumpers" stopped will change the whole atmosphere on the Border and won't cost anything except perhaps some additional overtime.
The only really difficult problem with a "tipping point" strategy will be the mid to upper management in the Border Patrol and ICE generally. They don't know how the next election is going to come out and they sure don't want to get a laser dot on their forehead from the Democrats. Facing a Democrat committee chairman holding hearings on "illegal immigrant abuse" allegations next fall would be no one's idea of a good career move, so they'll resist doing anything. And make no mistake about it, the laser dot isn't reserved to the political appointee level of the bureaucracy. Republicans won't even touch political appointees over policy disagreements for fear of being called partisan and mean spiritied, but the Ds have no problem going down into the civil service levels and getting away with it; they're "good people" and the unions won't confront a Democrat administration. Tough choice for a lot of 'crats who'd just as soon just do their job.
As to all the astounding cost estimates, that is Bureaucracy 101; if you can't attack the popular program, you just pile on costs, get the Democrats talking about how there is no plan and how to "do it better." That's all it takes to keep people floundering and talking until the next election and then the Democrats can attack the Leadership and the Administration for not doing anything about the problem. I know it sounds cynical, but I've been there, done that.
From what I've seen, the employers do a cursory check of documents. Beyond that, what are they supposed to do? I'm four-square in favor of attacking the immigration problem from the employer side - kill the demand for illegals, and they will check themselves out, but how do we do it?
A national database? That would be expensive to implement (bracketing for the moment the political opposition from civil liberties folks). And, given the FBI's absurd problems implementing system-wide intranet, it could get realllll ugly.
The other option would seem to be forcing extensive (and expensive) diligence on the companies, and I think we're all wary of forcing (another) unfunded regulatory mandate on the engines of the economy.
You speak as though enforcement of the immigration labor laws is something we've never done.
But we've done it. After 1994, Bill Clinton got tough on illegal immigration both by securing the non-desert parts of California's southern border with Operation Gatekeeper, and ALSO ensured a big uptick in the amount of interior enforcement.
Just do what Clinton did. It's pretty bad when I have to ask a Republican President to bring law and order enforcement up to Democratic levels, but I must in this case.
A little bit of enforcement makes a big, big difference. Focus it all on business, preferably small to mediums that don't have battalions of lawyers, long lists of contributions, and DC lobbyists. Just walk in and ask for the I-9s and the underlying verification documents, under existing law, you have to have all that for every employee. Charge the employer for every file that isn't in compliance. Then review the documents and for any that can't pass the redface test, ask to see the employee and the originals. If they're fake, charge the employee; if they're so fake that any fool should have caught it, charge the employer with something worse.
You won't have to do very much of this before the word gets out at the coffee shops, watering holes, Chambers, and Rotaries and people start being more careful.
Illegals don't come here for the casual leaf blowing, lawn mowing, handyman work; it takes too much work to get it and the pay is not good. They are looking for a job, and there's a whole bunch more jobs in small to medium business than there are in the big, bad violators like packers. Just cut the smaller businesses out and they fall into the world of the slave traders/labor brokers that service the bigs or they have to mow lawns.
I agree that there probably isn't enough testosterone in DC to take on Tyson et al., but you can cause them shortages and put their brokers in peril, and that increases costs and risks.
The mechanics of this sort of plan are pretty easy if there is the will to do it, but it does take time and patience; something this country isn't noted for.
and I think they are the reason people are digging their heels in and refusing to be fobbed off again as they were in 1986 with empty promises of enforcement at some vague point in the future.
as a society, we have to decide if we want to continue the exploitation of cheap illegal labor or not
I think that, as a society, we decided long ago that the "not" option is preferable. We, as in the majority of the people, are serious about it. The problem is getting the political class to pay attention to what we want. They have gotten quite attached to their Honduran nannies and the whole "Upstairs, Downstairs" lifestyle that goes with it. What kind of ruling class are you if you have to change your own kids diapers?
I take it from the above two responses that most illegals aren't making use of forged documents? I had thought the most common scenario is that illegals get work by presenting forged documents, which makes the enforcement a little trickier. If that assumption was wrong, my question is obviously moot.
You ignore the role the media will play, and is starting to play now in this issue. Stories are already appearing about how communities of illegals are hiding from ICE enforcement agents, now sweeps in predominately Hispanic illegal communities are "scaring" women and children. The searches by the way are for criminals, those under deportation orders, felons and others, but the by product is fear in the rest of the illegal community as a by product, or so say the MSM.
Count on "Chicken Little" Republicans, and Loony Left Democrats to wring hands, and run for the hills once the MSM starts up slanted coverage of enforcement actions. There is no spine there, there is no desire to do the right thing for the American public.
One of the many reasons that the "When Pigs Fly", plan for dealing with the illegals already in this country will fail, the press will beat any politician who is heartless to these poor women and children by actually enforcement of the laws either on the books now or new ones.
Strange, but the laws used to be enforced in the Clinton years, and I don't recall hearing the kind of stories you mention.
Bush has no problem standing up the the MSM, when he wants to. He is not enforcing the laws because he does not want to, not from fear of the media.
At least out here in So. California, the situation is beyond the upper classes. Try to find a local painting contractor or a dry wall contractor or any number of those sorts of business that employ legal workers, it's darn near impossible. I work with a gentlemen who's son is a plumber who tells me that the only reason his son does not hire illegals is the issue of plumbing being a licenced bonded trade. For some jobs, he subcontracts the physical labor, and guess what sort of labor is supplied and what cost. The reasons for this situation range from finding US born workers who are willing to do the work for the pay offered, to the cost of workman's compensation insurance, payroll taxes and other expense, to competitive markets where a business hiring only legals will loose work to those that don't care, to out and out greed.
As a homeowner, do I shop for and insist that contractors only employ legal workers, or do I take the lowest bid, knowing that the contractor is only able to bid so low due to the use of illegal workers off the books. It's been a while sense last time I have had to hire this sort of help, but to tell the truth, I don't think I could afford to or even find a company that is willing to certify that their work force was legal. So in some ways, the middle class drives the demand for illegal immigrants, not just the upper class.
at the employer level was in Reagan right after it passed and into Bush I. By Clinton, I was working for a state government and we were only giving lip service to the I-9 requirements. If there was enforcement in the Clinton years, it was the same kind of enforcement they used for labor laws: if you fought the unions or contributed to their opposition, you were subject to them. Otherwise, you could do no wrong.
a guy showed up in my driveway last week offering to fix a dent in wife's bumper that I'd had a $1300 quote on for $100 bucks. He was Hispanic and driving a truck with Texas plates, a little out of place in Juneau, AK. I didn't ask him to fill out an I-9 and the bumper looks good.
You seem to think that enforcement is impossible. I don't see why myself, but I guess I'm not going to get that point addressed.
But assuming that enforcement is impossible, where does that leave us? Should we allow anyone who wants to come here to come here? Once they are here what rights whould they have? Is it feasible to deny them the same rights as "normal" Americans?
You seem to be suggesting that we run up the white flag because for some reason it is just impossible to enforce laws. If so, then I think its time we invoked that bit in the Declaration about how "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
I think tax cuts and government derugulation is in their economic interests, so I certainly hope nobody votes against that.
"Focus it all on business, preferably small to mediums that don't have battalions of lawyers, long lists of contributions, and DC lobbyists."
Go after the people who take risks, build the economy and create jobs and wealth in this country and leave the guys who can buy off government alone? Really? Let lobbyists and lawyers win? Sounds like the medicine is worst than the cure.
Second - if you live in SoCal you will see there are TONS of illegals here for leaf blowing, nanny type jobs. In my neighborhook, in CA-50, the majority of people hire illegals in some form or another.
Actually enforcement actions will work, if there is a carrot and a stick approach.
The stick:
We're gonna get you and your employer if you don't get with the new immigration program. We're also going to get those ordered deported, convicted of a crime or anything else that someone who wants to become a citizen of this country better get. You screw up while in the program, we will find you put you in jail and then send you home.
We will begin enforcement of the provisions of the new law with employer sweeps and sanctions at some short period of time after passing the new immigration program.
The carrot:
If you pay some amount of fines, agree to a background check to make sure you have not been doing something else illegal in this country, learn English, we will put you at the back of the line for citizenship. You'll have to prove that you have been here a while, and putting up forged papers will cause you to be sent home.
Some would call that Amnesty, some including the President would not. In keeping with a judicial philosophy of making the punishment fit the crime , mitigating circumstances like the US leaving the borders wide open and the greed of American businesses; the amount of the fines, the time you have to have been here to qualify and other factors are the subject of a great debate for the House and Senate.
Even implementing a carrot and stick approach is going to take time, money and political will, all of which are in short supply.
Mike Pence's latest proposal could be described this way. Well, he gives absolutely no quarter to illegal aliens, he makes an offer to to the employers: "We're going to ramp up enforcement. But, we'll have a transition period of unlimited W visas. But, only those who volunteer for immediate close scrutiny of their employees are allowed to hire W visa holders."
Take a few million workers out of the economy and labor costs are gonna go up and some businesses are going to go broke.
What kind of impact would you be willing to live with to get rid of the spanish speakers?
Pence allows for a smooth transition by allowing unlimited W visas in the first few years.
Did I forget to mention a few other "features" to make this work.
Border Security must be improved and a measurable reduction in flows of illegals across our border must be observed before any applications under the program can begin.
DHS Secretary must report to Congress on an annual basis the number of apprehensions on the border, the number of employer investigations conducted, and other metrics which let both the Congress and the American people that our country once again enjoys secure borders. By law, continued funding of the DHS will be tied to performance of controlling our borders, works for No Child Left Behind, ought to work for the DHS.
It's those gosh darn illegal Canadians always saying EH! that gets to me.
is that we are going to have to rely on the very same people who are not enforcing the existing laws to enforce any new laws. Why should Congress pass new laws when its been shown that the executive branch has no desire to enforce the existing laws? Enforce current law, THEN we can think about passing new laws.
If you want to die bravely, go ahead. Winning is better. A strategic victory is worth a tactical defeat. It is easy to be a purist if you're not the one has has to get your "something" shot off. You like to play this perfection game, which indicates to me that you've never had to play it for keeps.
Hey there's plenty of blame to go around, heck you can even offer up big helping of that to Congress who has failed to fund DHS and ICE to the levels needed to fully control the border. Oh boy, we've raised the number of ICE agents to what, 12,000 over six years, from 9,000...big whoop.
You are right about a big slice of blame goes to a gutless executive branch that refuses to enforce the laws on the books right now.
I haven't heard this discussed before, so I get to get your thoughts on this.
I'd like a reporter at GWB's next news conference if he has directed any agency to not enforce the existing laws. The answer answer has to be yes, regardless of his answer.
There is no other excuse to explain only 3 employer criminal instances in the years since he's been president.
And if there has been that directive from GWB, or some underling critter, perhaps somewhere some prosecutor should empanel a grand jury to investigate the executive branch's failure to enforce the law. That surely must be criminal malfeasance.
Your thoughts?
The general public, as well as the vast majority of Republicans, will not accept any legislation that doesn't lead off with border security and interior enforcement. This means the Senate bill must be killed. So I generally agree with your analysis, Leon.
You also have pointed out something that needs to happen, pronto--major ICE crackdowns on employers this summer. If President Bush wants to be relevant after November, I hope he gets the message. There are adequate laws now to shake up the rank criminality that has spread throughout the country. The base and swing voters are at the tipping point on this issue and the House will be lost if this doesn't happen.
As others have written, Clinton even had a better enforcement record. The Administration better look at I-9s over the next few weeks and months or the White House will have to produce endless reams of documents after January.
If they do it this summer, it could really hurt it as a tool to rev up voters. Once the crack down begins, the media is going to be full of stories telling the "real life" human drama of this. While I doubt that will change anyone's mind, it may make them less likely to vote just on this one issue.
The right approach is to let this fester and fan the flames. People need to be hopping mad enough to vote for only this. The message has to be sent that unless you vote republican, nothing will be done.
This could be the issue that keeps us on track....
How can Republicans convince voters to vote Republican if they want something done if the Republicans do not do anything? I understand the media is not our friend. That is a given no matter what. I think getting a good bill passed before November that does have immigration reform and border security and does not have any amnesty will be better than doing nothing at all. I also think current law should be enforced, but after doing so little for the last 5 years I do not think President Bush will change.
I lived in CA for 23 years. I bet they have five million illegals. Nobody really has a handle on the number. This doesn't include
another 10 million legal immigrants. I heard that in 2010, 25 percent of the student population will be speaking English as a second language.
I don't think that most red staters realize the impact of immigration (mostly Mexicans). It is almost too late to do anything. In L.A., it is becoming a Third World country.
You have the super rich and the dirt poor, the latter living in basic subsistence. You have some middle class immigrants from Asia and Europe too. The various systems cannot handle the rapidly growing population, and most institutions are out of control. They have a dysfunctional state legislature. Another recession or disaster will nearly bankrupt the state because they are blowing so much money. Persons should study CA to determine if that is what they want their communities to become.
The 60 Minutes story about illegal packinghouse workers in Nebraska is quite instructive. Political influence can easily supersede federal law enforcement. Incidentally, the packinghouse wages, today, are what they used pay, 20-25 years ago.
In Iowa about 25 years ago, EPA tried to get on Iowa's case about particulate matter in the air (dust). They wanted to prevent the state from adding any new manufacturing plants, including John Deere. A call to a Democratic senator from Iowa on the Environment Committee was needed. He told the head of EPA to lay off, or he would cut their budget. EPA re-interpreted the air rules.
You write "Political influence can easily supersede federal law enforcement." It all depends on resolve. Look at the attempts at using political influence to make President Bush change his decisions about Iraq. President Bush has too much resolve about this fight to give in to the pressure. I have not seen in these 5 plus years that he has shown the same resolve with respect to enforcement of immigration law.
the immigration laws enforced.
This is the problem that I have with the premise of this diary that the ball is in President Bush's court for the 2006 elections. If Republicans running in 2006 are looking for victory because of President Bush's efforts with illegal immigration they will be disappointed. I think they have a better chance of victory if they convince the voter that they do not agree with President Bush about illegal immigrants.
If a CongressCritter or wannabe CC is hoping for any help from Bush on ANYTHING he's in trouble.
I LOVE southern California.
I think its the best place in the world to live.
he doesn't do something more substantive than border photo ops between now and the election. You may be right and he may continue the non-enforcement policy, which means only the House can save itself. I'm afraid that, alone, will not be enough.
but I believe, deliberately or not, you're mischaracterizing it by saying it allows for "unlimited" W visas. There is an implied limit, because the W visa must be arranged by an employer, using the private sector middlemen he proposes. Do you think American businesses are going to deliberately sponsor, say, 3 million immigrants per year when they only need, say, 500,000, just for the heck of it? It is our current system, which only permits 5K or 10K unskilled laborers to immigrate each year, but has allowed many millions to enter the US, that is an "unlimited" system of immigration.
that the message that is being received right now is, you voted Republican and nothing is getting done. I'm sorry, but nobody is going to shed tears for employers who shafted American workers and hired people illegally instead. The right time to enforce existing laws is always right now. Period.
And, I suspect that unless we stop playing that petty political game and start standing up for the rule of law, standing on principle and not politics, we will get thrown out of power sooner or later.
A lot more than national will is needed.
Under existing law, employers are only required to have an I-9, and "copies" of documents on file.
It is the Government's burden to examine documents for authenticity, not the employer. There are many problems with inspecting documents and verifying identities. It is not simply a matter of seeing if a piece of paper is counterfeit. There are dozens of ways of beating the system. A central repository of original documents and a computer data base as a basis for an ID card that cannot be forged, is needed.
The Government has to prove through the rules of evidence that an employer "knowingly" hired an illegal. This is a huge legal standard. The employer and the Government are not in a cooperative, but an adversary situation. Th employer is not supposed to be put in the position of making an admission against interests.
SSA, IRS, some other federal agencies, and some local and state law enforcement agencies do not cooperate in such cases.
this one's for keeps. The country is at stake.
First, please provide some documentation for the outrageous comment the majority of people hire illegals in some form or another.
I live in Phoenix. That statement is utter hogwash in Phoenix and Tucson, I have no confidence it's true in CA50.
Second, cut the crap about the people who take risks, build the economy and create jobs and wealth in this country and leave the guys who can buy off government alone? My heart bleeds. I happen to be one of those "people" and complying with I9's is the least of my regulatory worries. It's easy. ICE is very forgiving because the law says they have to be.
Given a choice between ICE or AZ State Banking, I'll take ICE any day of the week.
You go after small/medium business for several reasons:
- They don't have legions of lawyers. Although in this instance I wouldn't be surprised to see LaRaza, etal show up with the lawyers.
- They employ most of the people who are employed in this country.
- They DO NOT want to screw with the feds. If a guy down the street gets whacked with a big fine, I'm gonna make darn sure my I9's are pristine.
- The "medicine" is about as invasive as an aspirin when you have cancer. I've had several ICE visits and have never had a problem with either my files or the agents being "from the federal government".
Stick to something you know something about. This ain't it.
I can't recommend your stuff when you go straight to the front page. How else am I supposed to show how proud I am of you?
I'm going to buy you a badge from the dollar store that says #1 blogger. ;)