Give
Us Your Huddled Masses - Or Not
By William Fisher
22 March, 2006
Countercurrents.org
There
are some 10 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. today, and there
is no sign that the flow is going to decrease any time soon.
They pick and pack our agricultural
produce, serve patrons at our hotels and restaurants and resorts, and
help build our new houses. Most of them come from the southern border
with Mexico. Many of them have been here for years and have children
who were born in the U.S.
So serious is the problem
of illegal immigration that Governors of some of the states on the U.S.-Mexican
border – Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California -- have actually
declared “states of emergency” in an effort to get the attention
of Federal officials and lawmakers. Many raise the specter of Al Qaida
allies sneaking in to commit acts of terrorism.
The Department of Homeland
Security, which governs border control, appears incapable of dealing
with the problem. That has led to the formation of citizens’ vigilante
groups patrolling the border to “help” Border Patrol agents
to identify and capture lawbreakers.
Meanwhile, skilled hi-tech
workers, prospective university enrollees, and even State Department-sponsored
exchange students, can’t get visas to come here. And those who
come seeking asylum from political persecution or domestic abuse face
an increasingly impossible task of convincing immigration judges of
the validity of their claims.
Given these facts, the mantra
of just about everyone who speaks on this subject has become “America’s
immigration system is broken and must be fixed”. But that’s
about where the agreement ends. As to what do about the problem, there
are almost as many “solutions” as there are immigrants.
This was to be the year of
comprehensive immigration reform legislation. President Bush spent a
good deal of his once-hefty “political capital” to advocate
for a “guest worker” program. But so polarized are the views
of state officials, legislators and advocacy groups representing all
points on the political spectrum that Congress-watchers are expressing
serious doubt that 2006 will see any meaningful progress toward such
reform.
Tom Barry, Policy Director
for the International Relations Center (IRC), predicted flatly, “There
will be no comprehensive reform proposal approved by the U.S. Congress
during this session or any session in the near future because the immigration
restrictionists have seized control of the debate.”
What is likely, experts agree,
is a battle royal between two critical GOP constituencies: the “law-and-order
conservatives” and business interests that rely on immigrant labor.
One camp wants to tighten borders and deport people who are here illegally;
the other seeks to bring illegal workers out of the shadows and acknowledge
their growing economic importance.
The issue is complicated
by the competing -- and sometimes counter-intuitive – demands
of a wide range of groups and coalitions. Usually conservative business
interests, particularly in the fields of agriculture, construction,
and hospitality, want to open American borders to avail themselves of
cheaper labor.
Groups representing states
on the U.S.-Mexican border propose adopting draconian measures –
including construction of a “security fence” -- to stem
the tide of illegal immigrants. Others are advocating legislation that
would tighten U.S. border security but give some legal status to newcomers.
Still others are focusing on providing “a path to citizenship”
for the more than 10 million undocumented immigrants already in the
U.S.
Legislation reflecting the
varied panoply of solutions has already been introduced. Led by conservative
Republican Representative James Sensenbrenner, Jr. of Wisconsin, chairman
of the House Committee on the Judiciary, the House passed a bill in
January that would create a giant fence along the Mexican border, and
increase criminal penalties for immigration violations -- including
some mandatory minimum sentences -- for people who encourage illegal
immigration and for immigrants who return to the United States after
being deported. It would also broaden the range of deportable aliens
so that, for example, repeat drunk drivers can be kicked out of the
country.
The House bill would also
force employers to verify employees' Social Security numbers against
a national database, reimburse sheriffs in the counties that border
Mexico for the costs of holding illegal immigrants, and make both detention
and deportation of illegal immigrants easier. The Bush administration,
which earlier had proposed a “guest worker” program, supported
the House the bill, which was passed 239 to 182.
Critics of the House restrictions,
including many Senate Republicans, say the curbs would trample states'
rights and lead to more unlicensed drivers while ignoring what they
believe to be the crux of the problem: the millions of undocumented
people already entrenched in the workforce.
In the Senate, two pieces
of major legislation were introduced last year. One bill, sponsored
by Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Senator Edward M.
Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, calls for increased border security
but also creates a guest worker program. It would require illegal aliens
to pay all regular fees as well as a $1,000 fine to join the program
and, after six years, another $1,000 fine to obtain a green card signifying
legal permanent residence. Green card holders eventually can apply for
citizenship.
Another bill was introduced
last year by two border-state Republicans, Senator John Cornyn of Texas,
and Senator John Kyl of Arizona. It proposes a “work-and-return”
rationale rather than the McCain-Kennedy “work-and-stay”
approach.
Currently at the center of
the task of attempting to craft passable Senate legislation is Senator
Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who heads the powerful Senate
Judiciary Committee. His "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act
of 2006," would allow new immigrants to work in the country for
up to six years without applying for citizenship. It would create a
temporary status for the estimated 11 million to 20 million illegal
aliens already here, provided they pay their taxes, remain employed,
and pass background checks. The Specter bill does not limit the amount
of time those workers may remain in that status.
Specter's proposal is likely
to meet stiff opposition from champions of the much tougher immigration
bill passed by the House. Some observers believe the differences in
approach between House and Senate are irreconcilable.
One of the principal supporters
of the House approach, Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican and
one of the shrillest voices in the immigration debate, said of the Specter
proposal, "Words almost fail to describe the threat this bill poses
to our national and economic security."
While most civil liberties
and immigration experts favor any of the Senate proposals over the “enforcement
only” bill passed by the House, they nonetheless express reservations
about such issues as privacy, asylum, and due process protections for
immigrants.
The American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) calls attention to what it calls the lack of privacy protections
in the Specter proposal. It says that under the bill’s “Employment
Verification System”, all workers would be required to obtain
a federal agency’s permission to work. All employers would be
required to participate in a national employment eligibility verification
program.
But, the ACLU says, “Legislators
have not mandated that the private information flowing to and from the
government be encrypted or that the databases be secured. Thus, the
data provides a ripe target for identity thieves.”
“Even assuming a near-perfect
accuracy rate in the program, millions of legal, eligible American workers
could still have their right to work seriously delayed or denied --
while they fight bureaucratic red tape to resolve errors,” the
ACLU charges.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
which represents millions of employers, has also expressed strong objections
to the employment verification provisions.
The ACLU says the government
also would be given “extraordinary powers to detain non-citizens
indefinitely without meaningful review.” This move, it claims,
“would potentially place many non-citizens in a legal ‘black
hole’ that subjects them to a life sentence after having served
a criminal sentence, or, in some cases, without ever having been convicted
of a crime.”
Another immigration authority,
Karen Musalo, Director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies
at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law of the
University of California, told us, “The central goal of any comprehensive
immigration legislation should be to build and maintain an immigration
and judicial system based on core American values like fairness, family,
and recognition for one's work; one that recognizes that the consequences
of removal for most immigrants and their families are severe. Such legislation
must contain safeguards and ensure due process for vulnerable groups
seeking protection in the U.S., including refugees, children and victims
of trafficking.”
She criticized Senator Specter's
legislation for imposing “harsh criminal penalties on undocumented
workers and other immigrants for even minor or technical infractions
that cause them to lose their legal status, creates a permanent sub-class
of immigrant workers with no real protections and no provisions for
acquiring long-term legal status, and strips immigrants of judicial
review.”
The IRC’s Barry told
us, “The battle within the Republican party has been instigated
by largely by social conservatives, and it is likely that their positions
on enforcement will be adopted by the Republican party leadership, leaving
the Democrats looking in the public mind as if that they are the ones
without a clear stance against illegal immigration.”
He says the Kennedy-McCain
bill is the “most comprehensive” legislation being considered,
but adds, “This is a nonstarter in Congress and in U.S. society
because of the fierce restrictionist sentiment that now frames the political
debate over immigration in the United States.”
Apparently drowned out by
the shrill charges and counter-charges in the immigration debate is
a simple truth articulated by George Hunsinger, McCord professor of
theology at Princeton Theological Seminary and coordinator of Church
Folks for a Better America. He told us, “No human being -- whether
citizen or non-citizen -- should be placed outside the protections of
the law. No one who performs needed work should be denied fair wages
and decent conditions. A society that exploits immigrants for their
labor while declaring them illegal is caught in a tangle of contradictions.”
But this is an election year
for the U.S. Congress. So I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for
that simple truth to sink in.