Thread: Amnesty won't fix immigration woes

Amnesty won't fix immigration woes
By Peter DeFazio
Published: Wednesday, February 8, 2006

America has a proud heritage as a beacon for the dispossessed and oppressed, who come from around the world for a shot at achieving their dreams.

However, a nation that does not control its own borders is not secure. We need to know who is coming into our country, and we must keep out people who are not authorized to enter. With 500,000 or more people entering illegally every year, the status quo is not acceptable.

Prior efforts by Congress to control immigration - including reforms enacted in 1986 and 1996 - failed for lack of meaningful employer sanctions. As a result, undocumented workers have been used and abused, driving down wages, benefits and working conditions for all workers.

The border security legislation I voted for, House Resolution 4437, addresses this issue by requiring employers to verify a job applicant's eligibility with immigration and Social Security officials, rather than a cursory look at easily forged documents. The bill doubles the fines for employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers to a minimum of $5,000 for a first offense and up to $40,000 for subsequent offenses.

H.R. 4437 also improves border security by deploying more personnel and requiring enhanced technology. The bill would end the ``catch and release'' program, in which illegal immigrants caught at the border from countries other than Mexico are released once they promise to return for a court date. Not surprisingly, more than 75 percent never show up and remain in the country illegally. (Mexicans caught at the border are immediately deported.)

Critics of the border security bill reject legislation based on strong enforcement and security, arguing that all that is necessary is a guest worker program and amnesty. I admit that H.R. 4437 is not a finished legislative product, and I did not support every provision in it. But it has kick-started a long overdue debate in Congress on immigration.

I am not convinced there is a labor shortage that requires the importation of 550,000 or more guest workers every year, as envisioned by the immigration reform bill sponsored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. - which also allows family members to come along, doubling or tripling the number of new arrivals. Only after improving wages and working conditions and proving that no Americans are available for the job should an employer be able to recruit guest workers.

I am concerned that guest worker proposals will continue to erode the wages and working conditions of tens of millions of Americans and legal immigrants. The Commission on Immigration Reform, created in 1995 by President Bill Clinton, reported, "Guest worker programs have depressed wages" and reduced employment opportunities for "unskilled American workers, including recent immigrants," who can be easily "displaced by newly entering guest workers."

Other studies, including research by the National Research Council and the liberal Economic Policy Institute, show immigrants under guest worker programs are paid 15 percent to 33 percent less than U.S. citizens, even in highly skilled jobs, driving down wages for all workers.

All workers deserve the protection of labor laws. In fact, existing guest worker programs already nominally provide such protections, but they are not enforced. The lack of enforcement has reached crisis proportions. I don't believe that will magically change under a new guest worker program.

I do not support amnesty proposals that treat every immigrant the same way. It makes no sense to treat someone who entered illegally last week the same as someone who has been in the country for a decade or more, gainfully employed and paying taxes, with children who are U.S. citizens.

Currently, more than 4 million immigrants around the world are waiting for their paperwork to be processed so they can enter the U.S. legally. It will be years (in the case of Mexico and the Philippines, often 10 years or more) before they can enter the country under current quotas. Blanket amnesty for the 11 million already here illegally could delay or prevent the legal immigration of those who are complying with the law. I cannot support legislation that would hurt families following the rules.

I honestly don't have a complete solution to this problem. But I do know that just implementing a new guest worker program and blanket amnesty will not solve the problem of illegal immigration. Nor will a solution that focuses solely on border security - though increased border security and employer sanctions, should be the foundation of any solution.

Peter DeFazio, a Springfield Democrat, represents Oregon's 4th District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/ ... on=opinion

That is why if the Senate decides to give relief to those who came here and paid their taxes, have good moral character, etc, they should actually ENFORCE the enforement provision. Had they enforced the enforcement privisions of the 1986 amnesty, perhaps we wouldn't have 11 million illegals.

The reason I said "if the Senate decides to give relief to those who came here..." is because I know they won't agree to an enforcement only bill. I guarantee that. I've learned enough from my Public Administration class to know that they will fight it tooth-and-nail. I said it once, and I will say it again, the House only made it their version of the bill harsh so that the Republican's int he Senate have a starting point to chisel away at, then make it look like they are compromising.

Our whole society is based on compromising, that is how the U.S. was formed, the Senate was never meant to have equal representation. Some of the original founding fathers believed that voting power should be based on population per state, but the Southern states refused that deal because they had lower populations than the North, thus that is why in the Senate states are represented equally (2 Senators per state) and in the House states have voting power based on population. It was a compromise in order to unite the country otherwise the Southern territories would never have agreed to be part of the U.S. when the country began forming.

Sorry, didn't mean to get off topic but a really good read is "How Democratic is the American Constitution?" by Robert Dahl. It is not the leftist/liberal anti-American book that you may think it is, it simply shows flaws in the system and suggests that we work to fix them.

Originally Posted by Scubayons

Amnesty won't fix immigration woes
By Peter DeFazio
Published: Wednesday, February 8, 2006

[...] I do not support amnesty proposals that treat every immigrant the same way. It makes no sense to treat someone who entered illegally last week the same as someone who has been in the country for a decade or more, gainfully employed and paying taxes, with children who are U.S. citizens.

Currently, more than 4 million immigrants around the world are waiting for their paperwork to be processed so they can enter the U.S. legally. It will be years (in the case of Mexico and the Philippines, often 10 years or more) before they can enter the country under current quotas. Blanket amnesty for the 11 million already here illegally could delay or prevent the legal immigration of those who are complying with the law. I cannot support legislation that would hurt families following the rules.

I honestly don't have a complete solution to this problem. But I do know that just implementing a new guest worker program and blanket amnesty will not solve the problem of illegal immigration. Nor will a solution that focuses solely on border security - though increased border security and employer sanctions, should be the foundation of any solution.

Peter DeFazio, a Springfield Democrat, represents Oregon's 4th District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/ ... on=opinion

It seems that US Representative DeFazio might vote for an amnesty program for illegal aliens. Voters of Oregon's 4th Congressional District, please vote for a better candidate this year.