A politics of wink and nod

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
February 6, 2011
By Cynthia Tucker
WASHINGTON, D.C.

The most conservative Republicans and the most liberal Democrats should be able to agree on a few things, including requiring businesses to use a national computer system to verify the legal status of employees. That would dramatically curb illegal immigration.

When those areas of common-sense compromise fail, you have to figure that somebody doesn't really want a solution.

So what's keeping Congress from passing a bill to require businesses to use E-Verify, an instant background check run by the Department of Homeland Security?

For all the posturing over illegal immigration, dramatically slowing the stream of illegal immigrant workers would not be difficult.

Illegal immigrant border-crossers usually come here for better economic opportunity. That's read "jobs." If they couldn't get any jobs, many would simply not come. They'd get word from family and friends that the hiring spigot has totally dried up.

And most members of Congress know that.

But there has been an implicit bipartisan consensus not to require businesses to use E-Verify, a "free" computerized system that works much like those instant background checks for in-store credit cards.

It's very simple; it's very fast; and, with a negligible error rate, it's very reliable.

Many congressional liberals and socialists haven't supported a mandatory E-Verify because they, of course, don't want to make it harder for illegal workers to get jobs. And guess what? Many congressional conservatives don't either. They know that some businesses depend on illegal immigrant labor.

Just last month, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee exposed their hypocrisy.

Led by committee chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, they announced plans to hold hearings demanding that President Barack Obama return to a failed scheme used by his predecessor --- workplace raids that punish illegal immigrants but leave their employers largely unscathed.

The president supposedly has a much higher rate of deportations than his predecessor did, but Obama has also aggressively targeted employers.

Employers were fined $6.9 million in fiscal 2010, up from $675,000 in 2008, according to the Los Angeles Times.

It seems the GOP and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants to shield lawbreaking business executives. This should not be allowed in any country.

As Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jay Bookman has written, Georgia Republicans have also wavered on strict policies toward illegal hiring.

At a recent breakfast sponsored by the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, Bookman wrote, "[Lt. Gov. Casey] Cagle echoed [House Speaker David] Ralston, saying that he opposed illegal immigration but would fight what he called 'overregulation' of business."

Why does Congress let business interests get away with exploiting illegal immigrants and force them into "indentured servitude"?

A law that aggressively cracks down on illegal hiring may be the best hope for pushing comprehensive immigration reform through Congress; it will force the business lobby to acknowledge the importance of illegal immigrant labor.

That's why those who want to put illegal immigrants on a path to legal status ought to rally around a proposal by U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who would require all businesses to use e-Verify and face consequences for failure to do so.

He has drawn support from unsavory quarters, such as an anti-illegal immigration group called NumbersUSA.

Still, E-Verify may most certainly accomplish what years of activism has not --- opening a path toward immigration reform.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/En ... 82&start=1