Thread: The Debate Both Candidates Want To Avoid: Immigration

The Debate Both Candidates Want To Avoid: Immigration
by Jim Kouri

How quickly our broken borders went from an "issue of national security" -- in even liberal Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy's rhetoric -- to a campaign footnote. After the failure of comprehensive reform last summer, the matter has played an alarmingly quiet role in the 2008 presidential election. The reason isn't too complex for the modest political observer to stumble upon: Neither candidate has any interest in diving back into such a muddy trench.

McCain has found that his resume exposes him, or at least his earlier political incarnations, as far more sympathetic to illegal immigrants' rights than his conservative corner would like. For a man worried his political base won't turn out in November -- as appeared to be the case in the 2006 mid-term elections -- the image of "soft on illegals" might be the kiss of death.

Barack Obama's arduous primary battle exposed his weakness amongst Latino ranks. It's difficult to gauge whether the community, which went in favor of Sen. Clinton on the order of 2-1 in many states, dislikes Obama for racial reasons, or because Clinton's politics appealed to more blue-collar voters in general. Regardless, Obama knows that his lack of popularity with a traditionally Democratic demographic could be devastating.

And while both candidates dodge and duck, paying lip service to the safe points on the issue -- "we need to secure the border; immigrants play an important role in our workforce" -- individual states and federal agencies have launched forward. The failure of the federal government to pass comprehensive reform has given way to piecemeal, enforcement-heavy approaches.

Two weeks ago in Nevada, Mack Associates, the owner of 11 McDonald's, was fined $1 million for knowingly employing 58 illegals. A raid on an Iowa meatpacking plant apprehended 389 illegal immigrants and brought stories of inhumane conditions to national attention. A five-day raid in Lee County, Fla., this week turned up 62 immigrant fugitives.

The offensive is an important part of a broader approach, but alone, it has no hope of solving the problem. First, let's face a basic truth: The border will never be entirely secure. No border on Earth -- especially none stretching nearly 2000 miles -- can ever be locked up tight. A 15-foot mesh metal fence certainly isn't up to the task. Last year I found myself in Nogales, Ariz., on the border with former Gov. Raul Hector Castro. From his deck, we could see a slim fence. Every night, he said, he could watch as immigrants scurried over.

Wire cutters, ladders, tunnels, and converted trucks are ways immigrants have, and will continue, to skirt the border. If Israel can't keep weapons and fugitives out of Palestine, there's no way we're going to stop the flow of immigrants via methods of enforcement.

Ending illegal immigration will require destroying the force that attracts laborers: the lure of paying jobs. If we start to think about this as supply-side economists, the situation becomes a lot easier. This battle will be won by targeting employers. Incentives and disincentives are the best tools at the government's disposal. We need to make it dangerous to employ illegals; the raids highlighted above are a good start. Fines and fear of imprisonment will scare employers away from hiring illegals if the threat is credible. Making it illogical and dangerous to employ undocumented laborers is key to any comprehensive plan.

But there's another dimension that's equally important. We need a system that will allow employers to hire immigrants legally. Extending federally controlled, legal worker documentation is critical, and it doesn't necessarily mean putting immigrants on a path to citizenship. Most of those here came as laborers, following the promise of a paying job, not the prospect of citizenship. There should be enticements for those corporations that get labor pools documented quickly. Such a system would allow the government to tax immigrant wages, and could guarantee workers are afforded humane conditions, hours, and pay.

It would also allow the federal government to control the flow of laborers. Those here now, if sponsored by a company, could gain credentials. Those that cross the border illegally in the future would not be employable. To get a job working as a laborer in the U.S. would require going through a consulate and receiving proper documentation.

Although neither candidate has the courage to delve into the issue, it's certain to resurface once the victor takes office. Next time we get the chance, let's take a rational approach. Immigrants are a critical component of our economy; deportations en masse get us nowhere. Until we control employers, and create a system of documentation, the cross-border flow will continue, and worker conditions will remain reprehensible. America can do better.
http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary ... 3473.shtml

Illegal immigration and the freebies that states and the government hands out to them all for the benefit of corporations is what has ruined our economy, our schools, and our quality of life in our cities and small towns. Fannie Mae who gives money to Laraza made big money off of illegal immigration with the help of Bush and now we are bailing them out. We the tax payer have paid Fannie Mae dearly to keep them in business. Enough is enough. Homeland Security is another area that we have paid dearly for. Not even 911 woke up Bush.