Thread: Ruben Navarrette: Immigration debate needs honesty

Caution!!! Proceed with Care...Ruben Navarrette Alert!!!

Immigration debate needs honesty

The national dialogue over immigration reform is like a delicate negotiation -- one that works only if both sides deal in good faith. Which explains why the debate stalled. Neither side has been honest about what they really want and don't want.


We already knew that those on the right were being deceitful. They insist that border security is all they care about, when much of what drives them is a nativist impulse to reverse what they see as the "Mexican-ization" of the United States complete with taco trucks and Spanish-language billboards.
But last week, we learned that those on the left -- including open-border advocates, immigrant activists and Latino groups -- can be just as disingenuous. They insist that they support increased border enforcement as part of a comprehensive reform package, but when the enforcement comes a la carte, they cry foul.
These are some of the same people who also say we focus too much on the illegal immigrants and not enough on those who hire them. That's what I hear whenever I speak to Latino groups: that authorities should concentrate on the farms, restaurants, hotels and other businesses that depend on illegal immigrants to do the jobs that Americans pass up.
They have a point. It's just more sporting when government goes after people who have the resources to strike back. As it stands, most employers get a free pass. They have a long list of excuses, claiming that they didn't know a worker was illegal, that subcontractors do the hiring, that the documents presented looked real. And on it goes.
Yet when people make the argument that we focus too much on immigrants and not enough on employers, the implication is that they support cracking down on those doing the hiring. Apparently not. Otherwise the left wouldn't be so upset over a new initiative from the Department of Homeland Security that aims to go after employers who repeatedly hire illegal immigrants. It's as if the left finally figured out that if the government cracks down on employers, the tactic could punish workers by putting them out of a job.
That's too bad. Neither the illegal worker nor the unscrupulous employer deserves much sympathy. Besides, if you don't attack the problem at the root, you'll never solve it.
The left's fury was aroused last week by the announcement that Homeland Security would target employers through "no-match" letters sent by the Social Security Administration. Those letters go to employers informing them that the Social Security numbers of 10 or more workers don't match those on government records, a good indication that the workers could be in the country illegally. Under the new guidelines, once employers are notified that they have illegal workers, they would have to prove that the problem had been corrected even it that means firing the workers who provided phony documents. Employers who don't comply could face fines of up to $10,000 per violation.
The National Council of La Raza blasted the new policy as "an assault on the civil rights of all Hispanic Americans," according to a statement from NCLR President Janet Murguia. She said the new measures would result in "the racial profiling of all working Latinos."
The pro-immigrant National Immigration Forum predicted the new strategy would fail, with "disastrous, economic, security and civil rights consequences."
The New York Times editorial page called the crackdown on employers "infuriating and potentially dangerous" because of a 4 percent error rate with the database at the Social Security Administration. The newspaper also blasted the Bush administration for embracing an enforcement-only approach.
It's fine to oppose an enforcement-only approach as a wishful and ineffective strategy to curb illegal immigration. But that shouldn't stop you from supporting those elements that are fair and reasonable, such as cracking down on employers who repeatedly break the law.
Otherwise, folks might conclude that what you really want is an open border. That's not a logical position, but at least it's clear. And those who think we should go in that direction should just be honest and say so. Then maybe we can restart the negotiation.

Navarrette is a San Diego Union-Tribune columnist. Contact him via e-mail at ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com.

What dear Ruben and the rest of the La Racists haven't figured out yet
is that they're played as suckers by the US fedgov. They and all the open border types have been fed a bunch of BS for years about integrating our countries and along with a bunch of fed created benefits have lured in millions who care nothing about this country......much to our detriment.

Anyone who understands the Hegelian Dialectic (create the problem and control the reaction, then provide a "new" solution) should see that these millions of invaders are here to create the future chaotic conditions & problems that will allow the NWO types to ride in with their "new solution".

Very perceptive comments, Americanspirit. I agree with your analysis. Welcome to ALIPAC. You're going to like it here.

Welcome to ALIPAC americanspirit!

Welcome, Americanspirit.

Is our dear Ruben doing a bit of flipping on this issue? The last time I read one of his opinion articles, he was all for the illegals. I wrote him a very stern letter about that and told him he needed to look at both sides of this issue. Looks likes he's beginning to, but he's not quite there yet.