Immigration archives
It's "Jobs Week" in the John McCain for President campaign, focusing on policies that will help create jobs in the American economy. Keep taxes low, balance the Federal budget, making health care more affordable and establishing energy independence will help create jobs, according to the GOP Presidential contender.
But the bad feelings between McCain campaign and the Republican party's more conservative supporters over the nominees outspoken moderation on immigration is clouding the discussion. At the heart of the jobs debate, is the question of immigration. Unlike during past recessions, when immigrants were blamed for coming here and stealing American jobs few people are making that argument. Instead, the consensus seems to be that the immigrants who are here are working jobs in America, but they aren't necessarily taking American jobs.
In fact, the first question any uninterested observer should ask about the American economy is, why create jobs if we are importing labor? Because we are doing just that. America is importing labor when we outsource jobs to India or China. We import labor when we hire illegal immigrants to cook our food and clean our toilets. These are all jobs Americans could do, but even with unemployment increasing by the tens-of-thousands, we're not.
Before my brother and his family stayed in my apartment a couple weeks ago, I tried hiring some help to clean the place up. I asked many of my friends for referrals, and they extolled the virtues of Google Language Tools when dealing with their maids. But when one question came up - does he or she have the right to legally work in the United States? - the silence was deafening.
I went the safe route and hired a service, so they would have all the employer liability, but even then, only one of the three team members spoke English. Clearly the 6.8% of California workers on the unemployment list have not been looking for work cleaning toilets in West Hollywood.
But as John McCain revises his position on immigration as quickly as Barack Obama decides to look at the facts on the ground into consideration when he decides what to do in Iraq, one angle to the immigration debate gets left out. More than securing our borders and offering amnesty to undocumented immigrants, the best way to solve the problems at America's southern border is to create jobs...Mexican jobs.
While it is unadvisable to make sweeping statements about millions of people at once, it seems clear that the reason for the large numbers of undocumented workers in America is for better economic opportunities. And when "economic opportunity" means being a dishwasher or line cook, you know that things must be bad back home. And if they hated their families enough to get away from them by heading north, then why keep sending money back?
Unfortunately, on the campaign trail, the position of creating jobs in Mexico is not much of a winner if you're running for President of the United States. Instead, it is being danced around, referred to as part of more general discussions of trade issues and the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Senator McCain is an ardent supporter of NAFTA and all free trade. Conversely, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama caused a stir back in February when he said that NAFTA, "ships jobs overseas and force parents to compete with teenagers for minimum wage at Wal-Mart," and that he wanted to renegotiate the 1993 deal. .
Closing America's border to free trade, however, would probably create a giant sucking sound of immigrants coming north as lost jobs in maquiladoras make the perceived economic opportunity of minimum wage jobs in America even greater, especially if President Obama increases the minimum wage, to boot!
On the other hand, Republican John McCain has gone out on a limb and embraced free trade with the same fervor that he has embraced the equally popular Iraq War. It's dangerous politically, but smart as a policy. Keeping free trade with Mexico creates jobs south of the border producing everything from tomatoes to Volkswagens.
Only if the opportunity gap between Mexico and the United States can be closed will illegal immigration cease to be an issue. We can close that gap by tearing down America's economy, or by helping build Mexico's economy and creating Mexican jobs. I'd hope we can all agree on the latter.
Although it is too early to write an official post-mortem on the Bush administration, it is worth taking a look back at the last eight years - from George Bush the candidate, who showed signs of promise as a uniting centrist governor to George Bush the president, who is regarded as a dividing and bumbling - to gauge the currently dwindling stock of presidential contenders.
Most Americans will agree that the presidency of George W. Bush was been rather a disappointment. For conservatives, George Bush will be derided for pursuing liberal policies like immigration reform, and in the long eye of history, a Medicare prescription drug benefit which will bankrupt the system even earlier than projected. Liberals deride the President for overseeing two recessions and sending our country to war.
Folks like myself, who kind of supported President Bush from the beginning will be disappointed with him more for his failure to achieve Social Security reform, immigration reform and making his tax cuts permanent. These failures derive from what is his greatest strength and his greatest weakness: consistency.
In presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004, President Bush promised to lower taxes, fix Social Security, give prescription drugs to seniors, win the war in Iraq and make housing more affordable. You can't say he hasn't delivered on these promises - or at least tried. You may not like the man, but you cannot charge him with changing his positions.
Normally, that would be a virtue in politics, but what we've seen with the Bush Administration is that our leaders must be able to adapt to change in order to affect it.
So when I look to the candidates in the running for President now, I weigh them in this light: Do they possess a consistency verging on obstinacy, or are they someone who can read the tea leaves of changing times and provide effective leadership?
As a Republican, my natural instinct should be to look at our front-runner through the prism of the last eight years. Senator John McCain holds his hard-headedness and consistency up as his greatest quality - even when he doesn't walk the walk. In his come-to-Jesus speech last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the Republican front-runner equivocated his positions so widely that you could drive a truck through the exit clauses he added to his promises to the Conservative base. But at least they're promises he won't break!
On the flip-side, there is the candidate of change, Barack Obama. With so few accomplishments in the United States Senate, you would hope that Obama would give potential voters more than flourishing rhetoric. But when even my Democrat friend, "Blond David" says Obama lacks substance and doesn't say anything, you have to worry. The blond isn't just referring to David's hair color! I do know that Obama has become the most liberal United States Senator during his campaign for President and that alone is unsettling.
Which brings us to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Watching her pander to Democratic voters before the California primary, I had to cringe at visions of higher taxes, government healthcare programs and more. But based on President Bill Clinton's White House record, I can apply familiar logic: if you don't like her positions today, just wait awhile and they will change again.
In eight years in office, Bill Clinton gained a reputation for being a flip-flopper, a label which has become synonymous with Democratic candidates ever since. It's true he changed his positions, quite a bit either to triangulate between the extremes of the Liberal Left or Conservative Right or to adopt policies that, well, most Americans wanted.
The poll-driven governing that defined the Clinton years is not exactly leadership, but it's better than sticking to your guns when they're out of ammo, as President Bush has done. If Sen. Clinton can show even hints of such crass pandering to the will of the people, she'll deserve a second look - even from this Republican.
If, as I have suggested, Mike Huckabee is the Bill Clinton of this election cycle and Barack Obama is an Oval Office Arnold Schwarzenegger in the making, then the comeback kid of the Republican pack, Arizona Senator John McCain has a parallel which is equally clear from past Presidential contests: Senator and former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.
Just comparing the campaign trajectories of McCain and Kerry demonstrates a close parallel between the two candidates. During the summer and fall leading up to their respective elections, each candidate was written off for dead, polling in the single digits. But early wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, coupled with the collapse of the media-designated front-running campaign left each candidate inheriting their party's nomination by default.
Like John Kerry in 2004, Senator McCain is not very inspiring to his party's base. In fact, to many Republicans, John McCain is more know for his betrayals on tax cuts, campaign finance reform and immigration than for his strong national security record. Conversely, McCain's record of service in Vietnam will most likely play as an asset in 2008, rather than as a liability as it did for Kerry. Don't expect McCain to be "Swift Boated" even in a general election.
If McCain is lucky, as the Republican nominee, he will face Hillary Clinton in November, for she is just about the only political figure in America who is as polarizing as Kerry's 2004 opponent, George W. Bush. And, of course, we saw how much that helped the junior Senator from Massachusetts.
But wait! The parallels between McCain and Kerry don't stop with their war records! Both have a solid record...of flip-flopping on the issues.
I've already detailed how McCain's "straight talk" comes across more like double-speak, but the hits keep on coming.
In the California Republican Primary debate, the first question posed by CNN's Anderson Cooper was whether Americans were better off than they were eight years ago, when George W. Bush took office. McCain's negative assessment led Cooper to follow up by concluding, "It sounds like that we're not better off is what you're saying," to which the Senator had to stumble around to find a more positive-sounding answer about job creation and the economy.
Janet Hook, from the L.A. Times, later put McCain on the spot later in the debate about why he opposed President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, asking, "Now, more recently you've been saying that the reason why you opposed the tax cuts at first was because they weren't offset by spending cuts. But back when you actually voted against the tax cuts in Congress, you said you opposed them because they favored the wealthy too much. So which is it?"
In his typical double-speak, McCain answered, "I disagreed when we had tax cuts without spending restraint," re-writing history once again.
But McCain also appears to have flip-flopped on his own immigration bill as well, stating that he would not vote for his own legislation today - a fact buried in some rambling pandering about the processes of the United States Senate.
I guess you could say McCain was for his own position on immigration before he was against it! Sounds a lot like a position that John Kerry would take!
United States Senators do not have a good track record of being elected President, especially those who have served in the body for awhile. Perhaps this is because of the deliberative nature of the body, which makes it hard to be an obstinate fighter for one's convictions, but it usually ends up with the same campaign attack in a general election. Flip...Flop! Flip...Flop!
In early 2007, it seemed that a Subway Series presidential contest was all but inevitable. New Yorkers Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton had jumped into the Presidential race with sizable leads based on the idea that each was their party’s most electable candidate. But as the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary near, at least one of these candidates is quickly losing ground as he squanders his greatest asset - his electability.
When Rudy Giuliani spoke to the California Republican Party in February 2007, he received standing ovations that weren't given to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger when he spoke the night before. Giuliani’s message was designed to broaden the base of the Grand Old Party. It was a simple and inclusive platform: that America is the land of freedom, and that in order to promote freedom abroad, we should protect freedom at home.
I found that message refreshing, as did many others, and I jumped on the Giuliani bandwagon, proclaiming an urban conservative rennaissance. Unfortunately, the Giuliani campaign seems to have lost sight this great advantages, Through the debate season and now that the primaries are nearing, the candidate is beginning to list right-ward, in an apparent attempt to appeal to conservative values voters. As a result, his lead among GOP voters is failing.
Since he entered the race, Giuliani’s strength has been that he is the best Republican candidate even if he is not the best Republican. Republicans across the country are smart enough to realize that even if he were able to run, President George Bush would not win a third term in 2008 so the party should not nominate someone who is trying to out-do George Bush at being George Bush.
But that is exactly what Republicans will get if they nominate either of the two former governors in the race for the nomination, Mitt Romney (Massachusetts) or Mike Huckabee (Arkansas), both candidates who are less appealing to the electorate at large than a president whose approval ratings are in the twenties. Romney and Huckabee are better Republicans than Rudy Giuliani because they are against abortion, for family values and one even propose quarantining AIDS patients; they are not better Republican candidates because, well, these social issues are not issues that will get someone elected president in 2008.
Although Giuliani’s rightward shift is not nearly as dramatic as that of Mitt Romney, it is causing the same mistrust among voters for both candidates. Voters are asking themselves which candidate they’re getting, the one whose words they hear today, or the one whose deeds that can see in the past.
On immigration, Giuliani has gone from being a mayor who saw the economic benefits of immigrants in his city to one who wouldship ‘em all out if he could. The man who once proudly supported women’s reproductive rights is now saying he’d appoint anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court. And the former mayor who once lived with two drag queens is now preaching that we should love the sinner but hate the sin when it comes to The Gays.
Rudy Giuliani will not out-Republican the other Republican candidates. And if he keeps trying to shift his positions to appeal to core conservative voters, he stands to lose his strongest argument, the core of his political strength. Because he can expand the party’s base beyond fiscal or social conservatives, he's the best Republican presidential candidate - one who can win.
Los Angeles hosted an unprecedented conference of Republican and Democrat leaders this week, meeting in this year before the election for an unusual purpose. They didn't gather to discuss not how to claim America's votes as though they were the rightful property of one political party or the other but, instead, this group proposed that this nation be governed for Americans - not its ruling political classes.
The roster of speakers at the University of Southern California’s Ceasefire! conference on bridging the political divide had the superstar status worthy of its location: the new Creative Artists Agency headquarters in Century City. Talking heads Juan Williams of Fox News, Jay Carney and Lawrence O’Donnell of the McLaughlin Group, Michael Kinsley of Slate.com and former Bush advisor Matthew Dowd were but an intermezzo between appetizer courses of mayors Michael Bloomberg of New York (who has left the Republican party) and Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles and Governors Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California.
Despite their party affiliations - Villaraigosa and Napolitano are Democrats, Schwarzenegger a Republican and Bloomberg an independent having been a Republican and a Democrats - the themes of the four speeches given by the state and local leaders were remarkably similar: if Washington is going to be paralyzed by gridlock in some many important policy arenas then it is up to the states and cities to take leadership on setting policy and taking action on the pressing issues of the day: immigration, health care and global warming (or climate change).
As Villaraigosa, a Democrat, said, “State and local leaders are moving the needle on big issues because we are daring to think and dream big. We're doing so across party lines. We're doing so by refusing to trim our expectations or to hedge our bets," he said. "Like generations of Angelenos before us - we are imagining a brighter future, and we are building it. And I believe, like cities around the country, we’re demonstrating that it’s possible to create a different kind of government - one that is both fiscally responsible and socially progressive.”
Fiscally responsible and socially progressive - that sounds a lot like the agenda of Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who promotes an agenda of economic and social freedom.
The California Governor pointed to the debate over immigration as a clear area where a post-partisan agenda would shun the extremes and build compromise. Advocating that politicians “re-introduce the concept of the mainstream,” Governor Schwarzenegger laid out a simple compromise for immigration reform in his keynote remarks, “How about being realistic and just solving the problem? There's a totally reasonable centrist approach to the issue, and it is this; secure our borders while at the same time recognizing the economic and social reality by providing a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for those already here, and who meet certain criteria, like pay a fine for coming here illegally, learning the English language, and being law abiding citizens.”
If starting to build bridges across Washington’s partisan divide sounds familiar, it’s because you’ve heard it before.
At the end of the day, however, a Post-Partisan approach to governing will only work if it can translate into a post-partisan way of running for elected office. With the exception of Ronald Reagan’s landslide win in 1984, most Presidential races in recent memory have been won by single digits. As Bush Strategist Matthew Down pointed out, when all you need to win office is 51% of the vote, why spend the money to win with 61%?
This economical approach to campaigning leads candidates to win by ungovernable majorities which, rather than bring the nation together, split us apart. And it's not like Dowd doesn't know what he's talking about. He perfected the practice of micro-targeting for politics - and got George W. Bush elected. Twice.
The partisan campaign starts with an established base of voters, then slowly tries to add to it to reach 51%, adding incrementally to the number of voters as the campaign wears on. By contrast, a post-partisan campaign, like that of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006, embraces the center of the political spectrum and establishes itself as the only viable alternative for his own party’s base. It's "put up or shut up" to some extent and while some politicians might think they have the skill and the courage to run such a race, they often take the easier course. Why? Well, it works. Unfortunately it also results in the election of poll-conscious politicians who cater to their parties' extremes instead of attempting to forge workable compromises.
In California, the number of voters choosing not to affiliate with any political party has climbed 50% in the last eight years making it the third largest political group in the State. As more and more Americans abandon political labels and consider themselves members of neither the Republican nor Democratic Party - just as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has done - it's possible that a post-partisan approach to politics will become the only winning strategy. And we can finally bridge America’s political divide, where action is valued ahead of posturing.
But that day may be some time away. If Americans don't abandon their partisan affiliations, what looks like positioning for an "independent" bid is more likely to land Michael Bloomberg in the crossfire of American politics than on the front porch of the White House.
When Congress returns from its Memorial Day break, it will pick up where it left off debating immigration reform and a series of amendments. But the core of the immigration debate carries an unanswered question: why would any immigrants in pursuit of the “American Dream,” want to come to America in the first place?
First off, let me say that this is no anti-American screed. I love the USA. It’s a beautiful place of natural wonders, unless you are in New Jersey. It’s a place that cherishes freedom and liberty for all, unless you’re born a certain way. It’s a place where anyone can become President - especially if you’re related to one. And America is a place where any ambitious individual can make a living.
But the “American Dream” is to do more than make a living. The American Dream is to accumulate wealth, to live fabulously and to establish a legacy one can pass on when one’s time comes. Too bad the American government - and its tax policies - gets in the way of the American Dream.
Once you start making more than a living, it’s easy to turn sour on America and its paradoxical freedoms. The United States is one of two countries - the other being the Philippines - that has decided that once you are a citizen or possess a Green Card, your earnings are subject to taxation by the Internal Revenue Service, regardless of where you find yourself on the planet. That's just not fair!
See just like you cannot choose to be born heterosexual or otherwise, you cannot choose to be born an American citizen. And once you get that cherished label of freedom, you must pay for it! Which makes me wonder what the clamor for all these people to come to the States is about.
If America’s newest immigrants were truly smart and ambitious Then wouldn’t they choose to emigrate to a country that’s not going to stick their hands in their pocketbooks for the rest of their lives? Why not go to, say, Switzerland instead of South Central Los Angeles? Switzerland has no capital gains taxes on equities, no gift taxes - for giver or recipient - and no estate taxes for direct descendants. For some wishing to domicile in the country, they can even negotiate a lump-sum payment of up to 5 times the cost of their rent or mortgage and be done with taxes altogether.
Because such policies are attractive to the ultra-wealthy, they have led to a sort of accountancy warfare across Europe as different countries battle over who can offer the most favorable tax policies. Unfortunately, if you were born an American or chose to be one - and we granted the privilege - you can't qualify. Even if you repatriated your entire family to the Alpine chalet you visited in Christmas 1991, the long arm of the IRS could come and get you. Regardless of what the tax law is where an American is living, you see, he or she must pay taxes as if they were in the U.S.A. Whether a family patriarch died in 2011 - when the estate tax will be 0% or the following year when Nancy Pelosi proposes raising it to over 50% - would still matter because of the long arm of the American law.
That’s not fair! And if I were an emigrant looking for somewhere to go earn a living, I’d think twice about swearing allegiance to a government who would want to take a slice of whatever I send home to my family.
The only real way to avoid paying the IRS if you are an American citizen, then, would be to renounce your American citizenship - something I would not recommend for a number of reasons. And just like you cannot choose to change your sexual orientation, you cannot choose to become an ex-American solely for tax purposes. Our government does not recognize renunciations of citizenship if they are believed to be for tax purposes.
So I must ask: Why do we assume that everyone across the globe is lining up at the Rio Grande waiting for the Senate to pass a cloture motion and go into Conference with the House so they can get their “Z-Visa.” It's such a deal! Pay Uncle Sam $5,000 for the right to pay taxes on every red cent you earn for the rest of your life!
If today’s emigrants were smartly pursuing the American Dream, they’d be looking towards the Old Continent or Asia where they will have as much or more opportunity as in the States while avoiding the long arm of the IRS. What vision of the American Dream do today’s immigrants subscribe to if they’re not aspiring to the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous? Obviously not the one you and I were growing up believing in. Because if they bought into the American Dream most of us know, they’d never want to come to the U.S. of A.
Since Democrats took over the U.S. House and Senate last fall, practical political observers - myself included - have suggested that President George Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid take a page from their California counterparts who somehow figured out how to get along and advance a common agenda, despite their partisan differences.
But until last week’s immigration deal was struck, it seemed like our practical advice fell on deaf ears. Washington seemed more intent to be hyper-partisan rather than post-partisan. But that deal - like the compromise on funding for our troops in Iraq - is a sign that Washington is moving to a post-partisan way of doing business.
Although Pelosi and Reid have been slow on the uptake about the balance of powers, there are signs five months into their terms that the two are getting a hang of the process of compromise - even if it is a dirty word in Washington.
Given the start of this Congress, it seemed unlikely that I'd be typing the word "compromise" in any column about Pelosi. She, in particular, seemed to channel the obstinacy of her predecessor Newt Gingrich, focusing on a Democrat's “100 Hour” agenda as the Demcrats swept back into power. After more than 100 days, however, not one bit of the “100 Hour” agenda has become law - threatening to saddle her Congress - the first her party has had since 1995 - as "do-nothing".
And when it came to funding the war in Iraq, the Democrats seemed dug in. Pelosi and Reid complained that the President did not have the constitutional authority to have the funding bill exactly as he wished and that Congress had to have a say. While they were technically correct, the two Democrats, for the moment at least, seemed to forget that Congress wasn't given a carte-blanche in the Constitution either.
The branches of government have to work together if they want to get anything done. And that’s where the lessons from California these past few years would serve our national leadership well.
Last November, voters went to the polls in record numbers to “throw the bums out”, the Republican bums that is. But when all was said and done, one Republican not only survived, he thrived on election day. Although California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's fate seemed sealed with electoral defeats in a 2005 Special Election, he has managed to reach accords on global warming, raising the minimum wage and expanding civil rights with his Democratic-led legislature.
Like Schwarzenegger in 2005, George Bush is not a popular man - in California, in fact, gay marriage is twice as popular as the President - but, thankfully, polling numbers do not effect one’s constitutional powers, including the power to sign or veto legislation. President Bush reminded Congress of that when he rejected their timeline to surrender in Iraq.
What happened next was somewhat surprising. Rather than become more acrimonious with the President - as if that were possible with Senators using Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez as a punching bag - Congress started to work with the president. The first evidence of this new political savvy was last week's breakthrough compromise on immigration reform, the first item on a “compromise agenda” I suggested back in November. And yesterday, Congress compromised again on funding for the war.
To make post-partisanship work in Washington, Congress and the President must battle forces within their political parties as they strive to make progress toward breaking down the partisan divide. Democrats must reconcile their desires to give handouts to big labor while placating the pro-immigration forces within their party while Republicans must choose between big business and anti-immigrant bigotry. When it comes to the war in Iraq, Democrats must resist their natural instincts to hand over the keys of the Pentagon to the extremist anti-war elements of their party--a lesson they seem to be learning--and Republicans must realize that they do not have a blank check to fight enemies real and imagined indefinitely.
We will see many more debates similar to the one over the proposed guest-worker program which will test Washington’s willingness to keep the compromise coalition intact.
But as California’s Governor Schwarzenegger and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez have taught us, good governing doesn’t mean you always get what you want. By relenting on a timetable for Iraq, Congressional Democrats are showing that they may be starting to understand this - just as California Democrats understand that Governor Schwarzenegger won’t approve of any new taxes.
If Washington can weather the immigration storm - and send a bill to the President’s desk this summer - the groundwork will be laid for a new era of post-partisanship which might prove the President, in the end, to be a “uniter, not a divider.” Only if Pelosi and Reid can resist the urge to be confrontational with Bush with theirs be labeled anything but a “do-nothing Congress.”
If the Governors of the Federal Reserve are to be believed, the greatest threat to the American economy today is inflation. But as with many economic slow-downs in the past, the greater culprit may indeed be protectionism - both in trade and immigration.
To combat inflation, the Fed really only has one option - to raise interest rates, increasing the "cost" of money and slowing spending. A rate hike would also strengthen the dollar and thereby make imports cheaper. It would also cool the economy and ease inflationary pressures like full employment and economic expansion. But is that really what we want?
It seems that if there were another option to fighting inflation, putting the brakes on the American economy would not be the preferable route. Luckily, there is something the government can do to fight inflation that won’t hurt the American economy - fight protectionism, not growth.
This week, the Bush Administration announced a trade kerfuffle with China. It seems that the Chinese government is paying businesses to export consumer electronics components to the United States, in a practice called price-dumping. Our response? Slap a tariff on them!
We did the same a year ago when the Chinese Government was found subsidizing the export of polyester pants to American markets.
Let me get this straight. The Chinese Government wants to spend its money in order to make things cheaper for the American consumer. And we’re opposed to that? Why? Rather than raising interest rates as a way to make the dollar stronger, let’s instead encourage the Chinese government to make consumer products cheaper here at home!
The same ill logic is at play around the globe. Using sugar, Brazil makes enough ethanol to make the country practically energy independent. However, because we want to protect the corn industry in Iowa, America has slapped a huge tariff on Brazilian ethanol. Even though the Brazilian-produced product is more environmentally-friendly than our own corn-based ethanol.
If we want to fight global warming and move away from fossil fuels, shouldn’t we stop protecting Iowa farm-owners and start thinking about the fastest and cheapest ways to combat global warming in a non-inflationary manner?
When it comes to another commodity - labor - our policies are just as inflationary. The labor market is essentially running at capacity. We can’t create workers the same way we can create widgets, however. But we can recruit help. Rather than address our country’s labor shortage by passing immigration reforms, making it easier for those who want to work to do so legally, Congress - the Congress led by Democrats - and the Bush Administration pursued an enforcement-first strategy. The year of wrangling on this issue - not mention the misguided enforcement attempts - has had a chilling effect on the hiring of undocumented workers.
As a result, places like In-and-Out, the fast food restaurant, have had to raise wages. Other businesses - from my Laemmle art house movie theater to the neighborhood taco stand - are screaming out that they are “Now Hiring!” If increasing wages push prices higher, no one’s standard of living improves. But the tax man gets a raise - from higher tax receipts. And higher taxes have the same effect: They stifle economic growth.
That’s why it is important to grow our base of labor. The only way to do that in less than a couple decades - about the amount of time left before a growing number of American works hit retirement and leave the workforce - is to accommodate those whose lives would improve by coming to work in even the lowest-paying jobs in our country.
Whether we’re talking about actual commodities like ethanol or soft-commodities like labor, government’s instinct to protect Americans will, by triggering inflation and higher interest rates, hurt us all in the end.
A year ago, writing from the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, I asked which 1994 strategy Republicans would take in 2006 - a winning renewal of the Contract with America or a loser like immigrant bashing. We all know how that story ended.
It was pretty clear that immigration was on the top of Republicans' minds in 2006 - even based solely on the CPAC agenda. But in 2007, the party seems adrift, as if it suffered from the Democratic malaise of struggling to find a soul.
There is a battle brewing within the Republican Party between the activists and its general membership. Republican activists have gone ga-ga over the likes of Presidential Candidates Mitt Romney and Sen. Sam Brownback. But whenever Republican voters are asked whom they support in 2008, moderates like former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain top the list. Heck, even Newt Gingrich - who's not running - gets more support than the darlings of the Republican right. That's making the CPAC crowd restless.
And it's confusing. It's hard to tell which enemy is upon us. Take a look at the topics to be discussed at this week's edition of the Conservative cabal and you'll see what I mean:
- Beyond Our Pocketbooks: Social Issues and the Conservative Movement
- What Happened to the Fight Against Big Government?
- Conservative Values in the Real America – The States
- America’s Business Elites – Do They Really Believe in Free Enterprise?
- Why Are Liberals Hell-Bent on Raising Our Taxes?
- Terrorism: Is Religious Extremism or Secular Extremism the Problem?
- The Power of the Box Office: Bringing the Pro-Life Message to the Masses
And that is just the first day! Once you've wiped up the coffee that you've invariably spilled on your keyboard by now, let's look at the underlying message of this agenda:
Conservatives should stop thinking about money and put social issues first. But we should have smaller government. Because Democrats control Congress we must use the states to assert our influence. Big Business doesn't like you or our cause, they're just exploiting conservatives to advance some other agenda. But we should have smaller government. Democrats, who push their abortion and their homosexuality on society are responsible for terrorism. If Al Gore can win an Oscar, why not Phyllis Schlafly?
In all of this, the one statement rings hollow in this "conservative" agenda is the thought that we should have smaller government. If the agenda of the leaders of the Conservative Political Action Conference is indeed a look at the true state of the Conservative movement in 2007, then the Liberals have won.
How so? Well, Liberals, at least as I knew them, were those who wished to use the instruments of the state to impose their will upon others. Socialists, National Socialists, Communists and Democrats all believed that if you didn't agree with them, they'd use the government to make you. Sounds a lot like today's so-called Conservatives, doesn't it?
There's no telling what will come from this year's meeting of the Conservative Cabal, but we'll be there to see how the Right plans to strike back in 2007 - and let you know against whom, the Democrats or themselves?
Across the nation, voters turned on Republicans in yesterdays elections; from Congress to the State House, voters "threw the bums out," replacing them with anyone with a (D) after their name—with one major exception. In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger won resoundingly over State Treasurer Phil Angelides.
They say you should be careful what you wish for, and boy do I know that feeling today! Last April, I wrote that, " if the GOP is going to get beat in this election, I hope they get beat good." And a nationwide, Republicans were beat as badly as Democrat Angelides in California.
Many are already asking whether Schwarzenegger could serve as a model for Republican success. His progressive-libertarian approach to politics—combined with bipartisan cooperation with willing leaders across the aisle—changed the course of California history in just twelve months.
Against all my wishes, I doubt that the Republican Party will all of a sudden boldly scoff at the Religious Right, as Schwarzenegger has, or adopt a pro-environment agenda if it will cost business a dime.
But if President Bush and Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi wish to succeed in the next two years, they would be well-served to take a page from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Speaker Fabian Nunez.
Working together, Nunez and Schwarzenegger were able to do great things this year—fighting global warming, raising the minimum wage, expanding civil rights and more. Likewise, there are a number of areas where Pelosi and Bush can compromise and leave a legacy for the President and extend her speakership beyond one term:
Immigration Reform. The main obstacle between President Bush and reforming immigration policies last year was not the Democratic Party—it was House Republicans running from their shadows in what they thought were heavily-gerrymandered conservative districts. Pelosi could send the McCain-Kennedy compromise to the President's desk in her first 100 hours and few would object.
Healthcare Reform. The last time Congress tried to "fix" the healthcare crisis, we invented HMOs. However, as Schwarzenegger looks to models to provide universal healthcare without raising taxes next year, Bush and Pelosi could follow suit.
Alternative Energy. Bush has been trying to push Energy reform for years—and has been stymied by Democrats who oppose drilling in Alaska. Compromise here could focus on propping up American industries that promote clean energy to help such technologies become viable in the free market.
Minimum Wage. In a trade-off for pro-business tax measures—like extending the tax cuts of 2001—the President has said he will sign off on a raise in the minimum wage. Pelosi should send it to his desk.
"Protecting" Marriage. George Bush's push for a Federal Marriage Amendment is all but dead. However, he can nullify the need for one by signing a Federal Civil Unions bill—which confers the rights of marriage upon same-sex couples without redefining marriage. This would nullify the equal protection argument which "activist judges" have used to rule on. Moreover, voters in Arizona showed that this third-course was one which they prefer when they rejected a ban on gay marriage AND civil unions Tuesday—the first such defeat in the nation.
It may be a pipe-dream to think that any or all of these issues could result in a compromise. Short of compromising with the President, the new Democrat-controlled Congress will quickly regulate itself to "do-nothing status."
To show that they're serious about moving the nation forward, I propose that President Bush and Speaker-elect Pelosi should travel to California, sit down with Governor Schwarzenegger and Speaker Nunez and ask them how they did it. Now that he has a Democratic Congress, Bush may finally have a chance to be a "uniter, not a divider."
Tan Nguyen never had a chance of being elected to Congress - but for the past week, he's the only candidate the Southern California media can talk about. His race-baiting intimidation letter to Latino voters was either the dumbest or most nefarious political ploy to be pulled in this election cycle.
If you hadn't heard, Nguyen is accused of sending out a letter to voters with Spanish surnames threatening that illegal immigrants who vote could get deported. The Orange County Republican Party decried the letter and asked the candidate to withdraw from the race.
Governor Schwarzenegger and his opponent have both criticized Nguyen - a Vietnamese immigrant himself - but the candidate remains in the race, and in the headlines.
Upset that the GOP and Governor have moved so quickly to decry Ngyuen's stupidities, the Democratic Party is trying to make this incident a bigger issue than it already is. The party's statewide candidates are now claiming that the Republican Party created a hate-filled environment where Nguyen's actions could be considered acceptable.
That is certainly the message Democrats want in voters' minds as nothing else has been able to stick on the California Republican Party this election cycle - not even the stench of George W. Bush. And for as much press as Nguyen's letter is getting in the English-language press, you can imagine what kind of coverage it is getting in the Spanish-language media.
But overlooked in the row over Tan Nguyen's letter is the candidate himself. Until a year ago, he was a Democrat.
In fact, Nguyen was a Democratic candidate in 2004 against Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.
I say that Nguyen's letter was either the stupidest or the most nefarious political act this year because part of me wonders whether he's some sort of "Manchurian Candidate" planted by Democrats to pull this October stunt - and have it dragged out by the media going into the election. (Of couse, that's Cold War thinking - Vietnam, where Nguyen was born isn't the same as China for all kinds of reasons.)
That would take a lot of plotting and planning and coordination that, normally, I wouldn't give Democrats credit to be able to do. But since they withheld information about Mark Foley for months - if not years - to make his predatory sexual behavior a campaign issue, I wouldn't put anything past them.
There’s a new “open-borders” crowd in Washington these days—and ironically, it’s the same people who are trying to score political points by beating the anti-immigration drum.
This week, both the House and Senate began “hearings” across America on the issue of illegal immigration. Rather than sit down and talk to each other and work on a compromise to secure America’s borders and address the plight of immigrants already in the United States, these hearings amount to little more than show trials as each chamber of Congress trots out the people who will say what they want to hear.
The House panel met in San Diego and trotted out border patrol agents and local law enforcement agents talking about “threats” and “terrorism” along the border in order to make the case for their enforcement-only proposal.
The United States Senate, for their part, brought out New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to ask the practical questions about those immigrants already here…like how do you plan to deport them and who, then, do you plan to do your dishes?
Basically, the hearings being staged across the country are accomplishing nothing other than to harden the views of each chamber—and delay the start of negotiations between the House and the Senate.
For once, the Democratic Party got it right, pointing out that delaying a deal between the House and the Senate is the ultimate act of support for “Open Borders”.
If, as House Republicans suggest, there is a crisis along America’s borders which threatens our very being how can we wait around one day, let alone two months, before taking action to fix it?!?
When Governor Schwarzenegger was swept into office in 2003, he promised to break the gridlock in Sacramento and do what no Governor had done since 1986—pass a budget by the constitutionally-mandated June 15 deadline. But as midnight tolled on Friday, June 16, 2006, partisan gridlock prevailed—but in a reversal of fortunes, this time it was the Republican Assembly Caucus who were standing in the way of their own Republican Governor.
After succeeding in his first year in office at bringing Democrats and Republicans together to clean up the mess left by Governor Gray Davis, Governor Schwarzenegger went a bridge too far in pushing his reform agenda in 2005—alienating public employee unions with plans to reform pension benefits and teacher tenure. That led Democratic activists to turn on him and subsequently Democratic elected officials—to the point that Controller Steve Wetly, whom Arnold once described as his "twin" though he could unseat the Governator.
In years past, the budget battle either pitted minority Republicans against Democratic Governors or Democratic majorities in the Legislature against Republican Governors. The latter happened fifteen of the last twenty years, and the former in five years under Gray Davis. Never in the past two decades have Assembly Republicans blocked a Republican Governor's budget—until now.
Just a month ago, an on-time budget seemed like a slam-dunk for Scwarzenegger. Increased revenues meant he could pay back schools and pay off some of the revenue bonds approved by the voters to pay off Gray Davis' deficits. Democrats liked the plan, as did the Governor—it was his budget after all.
But Republican Assemblymembers—elected from gerrymandered districts reflecting the most conservative 35% of California—somehow couldn't play nice.
The issue that's dividing Arnold and Assembly Republicans? Drumroll please… Immigration!
Specifically, Republican legislators don't want to spend $24 million (out of a $130 billion-plus budget) to give healthcare to undocumented children.
The budget holdup is both mean-spirited and silly.
It's mean-spirited because if the children we're talking about are here illegally—it's not of their own choice. These children should not be punished for the sins of their parents.
It's silly because the money is insignificant in the larger picture. The public relations value for the Governor's campaign from passing a budget on time could be worth at least a million dollars—and tax dollars are easier to come by than campaign cash.
The national debate over Immigration reform is, in the words of CNN's Wolf Blitzer - a man not prone to understatement - "widening a crack within the Republican Party." He's only slightly exaggerating. Because unless Republicans come to their senses and stop tearing each other - and Immigration Reform itself - apart the Grand Old Party may learn that the wages of bigotry is, in fact, big government.
Before sending me off to college on the East Coast, my father told me to know what I believe in and apply those principles religiously. Well, what I've come to realize is that I kneel at the church of limited government.
Generally, I have applied this philosophy in approaching the immigration debate. That's led me to support proposals which would allow for people already here to gain the right to work and perhaps, over time, to earn citizenship. But what gets me sounding like a right-wing member of Congress is when it comes to the provision of government services to illegal immigrants. It almost makes me want to type the words in all-caps…ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!!!...just to get it out of my system.
Take for example the case of Antonio Villaraigosa, the Democratic Mayor of Los Angeles. He wants to put a $1 billion bond on the November 2006 ballot to build affordable housing. If you've tried finding a place to live in Los Angeles, you know that we need to do something for working people who make less than six digits, and the plan to subsidize private development of affordable housing makes sense.
Well, an Affordable Housing bond makes sense until you realize that Fair Housing Laws prevent discrimination on the basis of someone's legal status—which means that the City of Los Angeles is asking voters to raise their own taxes in order to give cheap housing to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!!! It's not that I have anything against immigrants - it's that I object to our country opening up my wallet to redistribute wealth to just about anyone who comes across the border.
I think most Republicans - and if the 1994 vote on Proposition 187 was any indication, most Americans - find something offensive about the idea cross-border carpet-bagging freeloaders. Come here and work, and we're fine with immigrants. But come to suckle off the government dole and there's a problem.
Republicans have gone astray in attacking the wrong head of this two-headed monster. Instead of trying to go after big government, Republicans in Congress are attacking the immigrants…and in the process, making Government even bigger.
Just this week, on the floor of the United States Senate, two Republicans proposed raising taxes by eliminating the Earned Income Tax Credit for immigrant workers. That's just the latest. Proposals to secure the border only create more government bureaucracy, and the crackdown on employers who hire ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS will only burden an economy that is shaking of the post 9-11 recession.
Higher taxes, bloated bureaucracy and economic stagnation are the cost some Republicans seem willing to pay for their attacks on immigrants - but I have to wonder if people wouldn't mind welcoming migrant workers into our country so much if, instead, we started slaying the beast that is Big Government.
In 2005, the looming insolvency of the nation's Social Security system was just too great a threat for President Bush to ignore, so he tried to delicately touch the Third Rail of American politics. He got burned. But in tackling another controversial issue in 2006, immigration, George Dubya may save Social Security after all… for awhile.
Contrary to popular belief and some Democratic dogma, Social Security is not a retirement savings program. Social Security is a wealth transfer from one generation to another. Workers pay in today, and old folks take out immediately.
Federal entitlement programs, including Social Security and Medicare, amount to a $72 trillion unfunded liability for the Federal Government. Medicare starts paying out more than it takes in within four years, and Social Security will be operating at a deficit as soon as 2018.
These structural deficits in Social Security and Medicare are happening because of the changing demographics of the American public. When Social Security was started under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, there were 16 workers for every retiree. Now, there are 3.3 workers per retiree and that number is projected to go as low as 2-to-1 before the system collapses on its own weight.
The best George Bush could come up with to find more young workers was ban gay marriage which, goes the logic, would encourage straight marriage which would, of course, encourage more procreation, ie chidlren. But even if that constitutional amendment were to pass the United States Senate this June, I don’t see how that will do a thing to encourage the amount of procreative monogamous sex which would be needed to fill the demographic gap facing the nation’s entitlement programs. Legislation is a long way from soft lighting and candles.
So - more seriously - how can we get more workers paying into the system? Previous proposals have focused on raising the retirement age, but that just gets any politician who mentions it accused of attacking old folks.
Oddly enough, by proposing sweeping immigration reform, George Bush may have stumbled upon an (at least temporary) answer to the Social Security solvency problem.
The Heritage Foundation claims that the Immigration Reform bill in the United States Senate could bring 100 to 200 million new Americans to the country over the next twenty years.
That's a roughly 50% increase in the workforce - if my numbers are right. While it probably requires a government actuary to tell you what that means for Social Security, I’d have to imagine it keeps the system solvent for at least a couple decades - or until these new Americans start to retire 30 or 40 years from now…
That may not be the panacea that the private account program initially proposed by the administration may have been. But in terms of the proposals, or lack thereof, to keep Social Security solvent, it’s just about the best plan going.
Beginning Monday, with President Bush's Monday-night speech proposed immigration reforms in the nation's capitol have pushed the Republican Party to the brink. Sitting in the Executive Committee of the Los Angeles County Republican Party on Wednesday, I couldn't help but ask where all the venom over the issue was when the GOP endorsed a guest-worker program as part of its platform in 2004.
Republican memories seem anything but elephant-like. Just two years ago, the Party adopted a platform which endorsed, "reforming the immigration system to ensure that it is legal, safe, orderly and humane." The GOP officially stood behind, "a new temporary worker program that applies when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs," and a pathway to citizenship for these workers that, by allowing equal footing with immigrants who are not here yet, is even more liberal than that proposed in the U.S. Senate.
What's more, the 2004 GOP Platform came out against an amnesty program, "because it would have the effect of encouraging illegal immigration and would give an unfair advantage to those who have broken our laws."
So the official position of the Republican Party is that neither a guest-worker program or a pathway to citizenship are considered "amnesty"—because how could you be for something before you are against it? Only Democrats do that!
Well, maybe. Unfortunately for Republicans in the U.S. House, the conservative blogosphere and talk radio hosts, 2004 was also the year the GOP also came out against tolerating dissension. The Platform committee rejected a proposal for a "Party Unity Plank" by the Republican Youth Majority, Log Cabin and Republicans For Choice which, had it been approved, would have said, "We recognize and respect that Republicans of good faith may not agree with all the planks in the party's platform… The Republican Party welcomes all people on all sides of these complex issues and encourages their active participation as we work together on those issues upon which we agree."
So for everyone who's calling President Bush, Senator John McCain and others working to pass Immigration Reform "un-Republican" or worse yet, "un-American", you'd better think again or perhaps speak again. The Republican Party - officially - does not welcome you!
Six weeks ago, when I wrote that, "the nuances of Senate deliberations and Conference Committees with the house are hard to put on a 3' x 5' placard…" I had no idea how right I was. But this week, in meetings with Administration officials and Members of Congress in Washington D.C., I learned that two major proposals - English-language requirements and Liberalization of Greencards and Visas - are considered so non-controversial they're not even being debated.
On this day, the Cinco de Mayo, that we celebrate an Americanized version of a Mexican Holiday, many Mexicans (and other immigrants) stand poised to be assimilated into American culture under several elements of immigration reform legislation which are going under the radar screen in Washington.
Monday afternoon, as members of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association (disclosure: VICA a client of mine) met with Reuben Barrales, White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, our eyes slipped past Karl Rove's advisor and to the television set, where hundreds of thousands of immigrants were protesting around the country. Someone went "off-script" of the meeting and asked whether English-language skills would be required on the "path to citizenship" proposed in Immigration Reform on the Hill.
Of course, Barrales said, "assimilation," will be a part of any bill.
My jaw dropped at the nonchalance over the issue of English-immersion and how the Administration was talking about it - not only because in any other political climate such an idea would generate a firestorm of public outcry, but also because it was the second time that day I had heard something about immigration described as such.
Early Monday morning, I got a tour of the new offices of the Tribune Company in Washington, D.C. and had a discussion with Los Angeles Times Bureau Chief Doyle MacManus and several reporters. I asked why no one was discussing the liberalization of legal means to immigration - such as more Green Cards or H1-B visas. It's something I've written passionately about for awhile now.
We're not hearing about it, I was told by one of the mainstream media's gatekeepers, because it's so non-controversial that no one is debating it.
Really?
No, really?
You're telling me that no one is debating a grand expansion of legal means to enter the country because they all agree on it?!?
Surely the debate over H1-B visas - which allow guestworker status for educated foreigners like nurses and engineers - is not as "sexy" (outside of Silicon Valley, anwyay) as the images of gardeners, maids and busboys marching in the street, but I'd have to imagine someone's against it.
In fact, one Democratic Congressman I spoke to was against expanding these legal means to immigration, especially for high-skilled workers. "Why give away good American jobs when we can train people to take them?," he asked. But he would not let his opposition stand in the way of his support for a "path to citizenship" for many of the residents of his downtown Los Angeles district.
But, as with "assimilation," no one is screaming and yelling over plans to expand Green Cards and Visas, so the media doesn't report it. If that practice holds true, immigration reform could look like the kind of "Christmas Tree" legislation usually reserved for the Appropriations process.
As he traveled into the heart of anti-immigrant territory, aka Orange County, CA, earlier last week, President Bush began shifting the debate over immigration. There are two immigration issues at hand—illegal immigration and legal immigration.
Without any fix to the problems to the legal immigration system which caused so many people to come here illegally over the last two decades, what’s to say that we won’t be having a “Boycott para America” in 2026?
Reader Paul Bursch of Los Gatos, CA, probably liked what he heard from Dubya this week. He wrote to me recently expressing his angst over the GOP posturing on immigration in Washington, DC.
Most of America gets both concepts that 1) the border needs to be controlled and that 2) “this is a country of immigrants.” Republicans should be pressing for RAISING the legal immigration limits while insisting that LEGAL is the operative world. Once this week’s ICE sting operation becomes the rule vs. the exception, and employers are provided a simple means (website) of confirming the validity of an SSN+name pairing, the job demand that illegal immigrants respond to would decrease dramatically.
Indeed, it seems that everyone—not just Republicans—is missing the boat on the issue. What good is it to “fix” the illegal immigrant situation by creating a guestworker program, path to citizenship or what have you, if we don’t address the core reason that so many people have come to this country illegally over the last two decades?
Indeed, the quota system in place for immigrants wishing to come to the United States seems woefully out of date. According to the Los Angeles Times, “the Department of Health and Human Services estimates that current demand for registered nurses exceeds supply by about 100,000 annually. The department expects this shortage to increase tenfold, to almost 1 million annually, by 2020. Yet the quota for the H1-C visa, which allows qualified nurses from other countries to work in the U.S. for up to three years, is set at a miserly 500 a year.”
Liberalizing LEGAL immigration would solve two problems—it would prevent people from feeling they need to violate the law to pursue the promise of the land of opportunity and it would allow businesses to meet their workforce needs.
Every time you hear labor unions bemoaning a “shortage” of workers whenever the police, nurses or teachers want to justify a pay raise, ask yourself whether that shortage would exist if we had a more sensible immigration policy?
It comes down to supply and demand…There are jobs here that need filling—and they’re not all minimum-wage proposals as some would lead you to believe—and there are people willing to fill them. The United States’ immigration policy creates what economists would call “market failure” (if I remember my college years correctly), creating inefficiencies in the economy that in the end, hurt us all.
For the first time since the national debate on immigration began, pollsters went to the people to ask Americans what they really want. Faced with to seemingly irreconcilable choices on Capitol Hill, the public came back and said, "we want both!"
In a nationwide survey conducted by the Los Angeles Times, a majority of Americans said they'd support the Democratic plan to allow undocumented workers to get a path to citizenship. In the same survey, more Americans were for fencing off the border than were against it. A majority also supported creating a guest-worker program.
Cheers can be heard coming from all corners of Capitol Hill as everyone can now say they're trying to implement the will of the people.
But the people pulled a fast one on Congress, rejecting the false dichotomy of the partisan choices. Forced to choose between one solution or both, those polled said by a 2-to-1 margin that they'd take both stronger enforcement and a guest worker program. Heh.
Similar results came out of California this week in the Field Poll's bilingual survey of Californians.
Californians favor: a path to citizenship, a guest-worker program, penalties on employers of illegal immigrants, and requiring immigrants who have been here less than two years to leave the country. Practically the only things we're against are giving illegals drivers' licenses and arresting illegal aliens and charging them with a felony.
So while politicians in Washington bicker about who's at fault for stalling the Senate compromise on Immigration reform, the public is seriously engaging in the issue and forming their own opinions.
Mostly, they favor an approach which embraces both the Democrats' and the Republicans' proposals to grant rights to immigrants already here and toughen enforcement at the border. In other words, most Americans probably support George Bush's proposals—just don't ask the question that way on a poll!
After two weeks of national debate over immigration reform, the United States Senate did what it does best today: nothing. But maybe their two week vacation will allow our Senators to come back and get serious about long-term immigration solutions.
Over the past two weeks, a compromise bill came out of committee, only to see Majority Leader Bill Frist seek to boost his Presidential Primary posture by introducing a draconian enforcement-only bill.
In response, Democratic leaders pushed for a vote on earlier compromise, but only if there could be no amendments voted on the floor of the Senate. As the week wore on, yet another compromise came out which looked even more like "amnesty" than the guestworker programs Republicans railed against.
Two months ago, I wrote that, "we're asking United States Senators to choose policy objectives at the expense of scoring political points" before predicting that it wasn't likely to happen. Little did I know how prescient I would be.
United States Senators will now take a two-week vacation and go back to their districts. Surely, immigration will be a hot topic as they meet with constituents and listen to Holy Week sermons from the pulpit.
Perhaps getting away from Washington will allow our elected officials to gain some perspective. What we have with the immigration debate are really two major issues—what to do about the immigrants who are already here, and how do we protect our borders in the future.
The House version of the immigration bill focuses primarily on the latter, but it's enforcement-only approach is unrealistic. The Senate bills attempt to address the situation of immigrants who are already here, but is short-sighted when it comes to what will happen in the future. If passed, any compromise between these positions will force us to have this same debate again in 20 years just like the last "amnesty" bill under President Reagan.
A more comprehensive approach to immigration should ask the question, "if so many people want to become Americans, what is the appropriate level of legal immigration we allow?" Is it right to grant legal citizenship to 10,000 people a year? 100,000? One million? Or do we need a quota at all?
So for those immigrants who are already here, let's find a way to allow us to bring them out of the shadows and give them the right to work here and stay here as long as they register with the Government. Then let's adjust or eliminate the annual immigration quotas. If we can bear to welcome a million new Americans a year, through the legal processes, then raise the quota—and let folks apply. If someone wants to come here and get a job, pay our exorbitant taxes and chase the American dream, why should we keep them out?
If coming to America were decriminalized, there would be fewer criminals coming to America.
A family works its way out of poverty, travels long and far to find employment and struggles to keep their family together, all without seeking a dime of public assistance. Sounds like the model family for the Grand Old Party during debates over Welfare Reform, doesn't it? But throw the word, "immigrant" into the mix and the same families are criminals.
Republicans tend to assume that because Latinos tend to be Democrats that they like all the other things Democrats like too—government handouts, higher taxes and liberal social agendas. But that's just not true!
Consider this. A large number of immigrants who come to America are living in poverty in their homelands. They see a land of opportunity, and decide to chase the American dream. Rather than resort to public assistance (because generally, they cannot), they get jobs.
Immigrants to America work hard—two and sometimes three shifts a day—to make a living and support their families. Can't you think of a few American citizens who had such a work ethic? This entrepreneurial spirit is at the core of Republican values…at least as I know them.
As others have noted, immigrants, by and large, are strong believers in "family values"… They have a lower divorce rate and spend more of their disposable income on their families than other parts of the population. Were we listening, they would have probably cheered Dan Quayle when he took on Murphy Brown instead of deriding him.
You'd think the Republican Party would embrace those who share its values, and vice versa. Immigrants, by and large, should be Republicans. But we don't embrace them, and when the immigrants or their children become eligible to vote, they generally don't join the party.
I don't need to tell you that the same Republican xenophobia which led them to demagogue on the Dubai Ports deal is the same phenomenon which is pushing Immigrants away from the party. What I need to know—and maybe you can tell me—is why my party insists on alienating a whole group of people who agree with it!
The past two days, students at Los Angeles schools have taken to the streets in impromptu "flash-mob" style demonstrations over the immigration legislation being considered in Washington. They're just kids, and most of them, I would suspect are American citizens—but many of them have their families on the line in Washington, D.C. this week.
For these students, immigration reform is not about ditching class, it is about their families. While many of them may have been born here and are United States citizens, many Los Angeles teens have parents who are not. Whatever happens in Washington will determine the fate of these Americans' families.
The United States Senate is considering a range of proposals on immigration starting today. With each bill that is introduced, there will be a number of amendments. Crossing the border illegally is already a crime, but should simply the act of being in the United States be a felony? Should we organize a mass-deportation program? Should employers be penalized for hiring illegal aliens? Should there be a guest-worker program and who gets priority?
For many United States Senators, these are policy questions. For the clergy, they are ethical questions. For the Chamber of Commerce, these are economic matters. Yet for those kids who marched onto a Southern California freeway—this is about their moms and their dads and whether there will be dinner on the table. Many are not illegal aliens, but they are American citizens whose lives will be touched by the outcome of Washington's debate.
Call me a bleeding-heart Republican, but if we're putting the interests of Americans first, maybe we want to think about those Americans whose parents and families may be torn apart when the U.S. Senate considers an Immigration Bill. Keeping families together should be a consideration in any bill. After all, they're no less American than you or me.
As I lay in bed trying to get to sleep in my Paris hotel room watching the images of yesterday's march for immigrant rights in Los Angeles, I could not help but think, "Oh. My. God. They just keep coming." Half a million in all, described by the world media as immigrants to the United States opposing government plans to make their status illegal. And the press couldn't have confused the issue any more.
At first glance, you'd think that everyone of the half million people in Downtown Los Angeles were illegal immigrants and that the evil George Bush wanted to round up everyone in this group and ship them out of the country. I am sure that even with the benefit of more than a 30-second television segment, many Americans think the same thing…but you couldn't be further from the truth.
It's hard to tell what exactly the "immigrants" are protesting at this point. Months ago, the House of Representatives passed the legislation they should have been protesting about—the Sensenbrenner Bill which I described earlier as "red-meat for the farthest right elements of the GOP" Some, it appears, are protesting it anyways as the US Senate prepares to hear its own immigration proposals.
But for the people marching in the streets of Los Angeles and other American cities, the proposals being heard in the Senate should be an embarrassment of riches—worthy of praise not protest. President Bush's proposal, advanced by Senator John Kyl would grant legal status to many who are in the U.S., while a McCain-Kennedy proposal goes even further to accommodate workers within our borders, legal or not. And that's my 30-second version.
Three competing proposals is one to many for a media that likes to cast things in black and while—and the nuances of Senate deliberations and Conference Committees with the house are hard to put on a 3' x 5' placard…so rather than a real discussion of policy, we get "Illegal Immigrants Protest Government in Los Angeles"…which plays into the hands of those who'd rather make immigration an election-year issue rather than make real policy advancements.
