Sagan: Immigration needs more than fig leaf
Posted: March 8, 2011 - 12:00am

By Greg Sagan

The Texas Legislature may be on the verge of passing an Arizona-style immigration bill - sort of.

House Bill 1202, introduced by state Rep. Debbie Riddle, a Republican who represents much of northwest Harris County, would punish anyone who hired an "unauthorized alien" with up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine. But this bill protects those who hire unauthorized immigrants "for the purpose of obtaining labor or other work to be performed exclusively or primarily at a single-family residence." That is, maids, caretakers, gardeners and the like.

According to CNN, another Republican, state Rep. Aaron Pena, offers this explanation for the exemption: "With things as they are today, (Riddle's) bill will see a large segment of the Texas population in prison" if it passes without the exception. Rep. Pena went on to say, "When it comes to household employees or yard workers it is extremely common for Texans to hire people who are likely undocumented workers. It is so common it is overlooked."

Riddle's chief of staff, Jon English, was quoted in the same CNN piece as saying that the exception of domestics was necessary to avoid "stifling the economic engine" of Texas.

These rationalizations assert two things about Texas. The first is that Texans who can afford to hire home and family maintenance workers can't be expected to either pay more for legal workers or suffer prosecution for aggravating the illegal immigration problem we face on a border that stretches for over 1,200 miles. The second is that maids and yard workers are the hidden linchpin of the state's economy, an argument that strikes me as absurd.

But let's consider these arguments a moment. Should we exempt people from criminal prosecution because there are too many of them? Or, to ask it another way, if we make an act a crime and exempt those who are the most flagrant about perpetrating it then does that really get us anywhere? If we start with the assumption that the law is the law and it applies to everyone then we are drawn inexorably to the consideration of who is affected and how much. If we outlaw alcohol consumption, for example (and America tried that once), should the number of drinkers matter?

Well, if we want to protect children from exploitation should it matter if the number of exploiters is ten or a hundred times larger than we thought it was? If it does then maybe the law is the wrong solution.

What this argument reduces to, rather quickly I might add, is that we mustn't inconvenience those with economic power. They are, after all, our neighbors. Our friends. Our constituents. Our benefactors. It's really hard to get elected without them, so we offer this mind-boggling and principle-undermining compromise to stay in power ourselves.

And that's just the domestic problem. What do you suppose the rest of the world thinks of our "tough talk?" If an illegal immigrant can come to America to work for peanuts and that immigrant has a baby on U.S. soil, does that not create the same problem as if a farm-worker, student, thug or engineer comes to America and has a child on U.S. soil? I don't see the difference. Do you?

Could a terrorist get into this county just as easily with this bill passed into law? I suspect so. Are we really forcing foreign nationals to go through INS checkpoints to enter this country instead of swimming the river and walking to work? Do you think they really care?

As far as the economic engine thing, I have to assume that the economic damage arises from jailing those who can afford to hire immigrants for their homes and not from forgoing the economic contributions of home maintenance workers. This sends the unfortunate message that we ought not criminalize behaviors that wealthy people engage in even if those behaviors are legally denied to everyone else.

But it seems to me that the same argument can be applied to any illegal immigrant. We hire what were once called braceros to work in our fields at harvest time. If they had to be legal immigrants would that not drive up the cost of agriculture? If an illegal immigrant is hurt on the job, who should pay for the medical treatment? The employer? The immigrant? The taxpayer? Mexico?

I believe that border security is a legitimate role for the U.S. military, a force that is currently better prepared to stop illegal immigration into Iraq than it is here.

But whatever answer we get, it had better be something more substantial than this fig leaf. And it better be America talking, not just Texas.

Greg Sagan is an Amarillo business consultant and freelance writer.

http://amarillo.com/opinion/opinion-col ... e-fig-leaf