Opinionated? Be Heard! Write an e-mail to the editors of The Hill and get published.
TheHillPR@unc.edu

 
We want you to write and edit for The Hill Complete the application and then submit it via e-mail and we'll consider you as a writer for our next issue.

Previous | Table of Contents

A New Immigration Policy Proposal
Change in policy is long due

Nicole Martin
Staff Writer

Serious legislation regarding immigrant workers is long overdue, and the immigration policy proposed by President Bush at the beginning of the year appears to be a good start.

The US labor market is 14% foreign-born compared with 11.5% (or 32.5 million) of the general population. Both figures are probably underestimates, as the number of illegal aliens is notoriously hard to calculate. Estimates range from 8 to 20 million people. Approximately 2 million people enter the US illegally each year as border patrols, hindered by tight budgets, have been forced into a ‘catch and release’ pattern that is inefficient and unsafe.

President Bush’s proposal allows workers who are already ‘matched’ with jobs to receive work visas. Additionally, employers who are unable to find Americans to fill jobs can offer them to people overseas. Senior administration officials have confirmed that approximately 7 to 8 million people would be eligible for this program, although no cap on the work visas has been discussed.

Once accepted, workers in the program would be allowed to apply for a green card, although they would not be afforded a higher status than those who are not in the program. The number of green cards is currently fixed at 140,000. The program’s participants would not be allowed to stay permanently, but the visas would be eligible for renewal for three years. The administration has stressed that this is not an amnesty program, yet, in permitting workers to come forward without being deported, the program does seem to offer amnesty, if only temporarily. After the visas expire, the immigrants are supposed to go home, but given the current under-funding of similar programs, they will likely disappear into the world from whence they came.

Some of the program’s critics hold that it will ‘reward’ illegal aliens. This argument neglects the fact that these people have found their own reward in the form of jobs and that they are not going to stop coming. President Bush’s plan acknowledges the facts and offers solutions.

This is going to be a pilot project, and it is currently one with quite a few holes. Bush’s budget did increase funding in the Department of Homeland Security, but it is unclear whether that increase includes funds for this program. Immigrants do have incentives to join the program, as they will receive the minimum wage and all other labor protections. But when the program ends, they cannot remain in the country legally, which means the program may not provide a long-term solution to the immigrants’ employment problem. Nor is it clear whether there will be limitations to the number of renewals or if the laborers will have time to look for new jobs if they get downsized. If not, immigrants might be tied to bad jobs as the fear of deportation keeps them from quitting.

Perhaps the most important question to be asked is not about the bill’s details but its political feasibility. Skeptics have wondered aloud whether President Bush even thinks the bill will pass, or whether he wants it to. There was an initial burst of media activity in the few days following the announcement of the program. Since then, there has been little conversation and no action on the matter. President Bush discussed the plan only briefly in the State of the Union address. The response to President Bush’s announcement is a perfect example of the hyperactive lack of attention in an election year. The media has moved past this issue to those more pertinent to the election.. And while the Democratic nominees have not even deigned it worthy of their attention, the issue should be discussed, if not this year, then later.

Even if Bush were dedicated to its passage, there would be other hurdles. In an election year, Democrats will be even more unwilling to make compromises. Considering the vicious fights over the energy bill, the prescription drug benefit, the appropriations bill and the judicial nominees, there’s little bipartisan goodwill left. Conservative Republicans are already unhappy about the expensive 2005 budget and the mounting deficit, and will probably balk at the opportunity to spend more money to import workers.

Senators Hagel and Daschle have proposed a bipartisan bill that has only a few changes from the administration’s proposal. Daschle is himself facing a difficult reelection fight, and introducing this legislation is a smart move for him. This bill would have a good chance of passing, but it has yet to be written and descriptions are currently limited to press releases. It could be several months until it is introduced, and the chances of a bipartisan bill passing will get slimmer and slimmer as Election Day nears.

Even with these doubts that the proposed legislation raises, critics are short-sighted in saying that the President is just “playing politics.” It is true that the bill is a politically savvy move. The President is starting to move toward the political center, trying to appeal to more moderate voters. The issue is very important to the increasingly influential Hispanic demographic. Democratic nominees, if forced to take a position, will be stuck between supporting the President and displeasing Hispanic voters. At the very least, political observers should respect this aspect of Bush’s reelection strategy

The electoral value that Bush may gain from the bill has no bearing on its worth as potential domestic policy. It should not be that amazing that every so often the incentives in politics and in policy align, for one brief moment, to create an effective bill. Good politics might just be making good policy in this case.

Immigrants are streaming in. They are an important source of labor and deserve protections such as the minimum wage. Although some politicians would clearly rather ignore it, this is becoming more than just a problem of border security and labor markets. The continued denial of basic rights to these economic refugees amounts to a human rights violation and should be addressed. If we are unwilling to change the fact that our border patrols are under-funded and unable to enforce the laws, we must offer protections to the people who do come into the country. The proposal might have little chance of being passed this year, but, at the very least, it has introduced an important issue to the arena of public debate.

Staff Writer Nicole Martin can be reached at:
nwmartin@email.unc.edu

Previous | Table of Contents

E-mail
 .:: Webmaster :: Editor-in-chief

Copyright © 2002 - 2003 The Hill: Chapel Hill Political Review