Minuteman volunteers concerned about the continued flow of illegal immigrants across the border from Mexico gathered Saturday with lawn chairs, binoculars and cell phones for a new month long campaign aimed at raising public awareness of the issue. A year after their first watch-and-report operation along the border in southeastern Arizona, members of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps embarked on a much larger effort in the busy migrant-smuggling corridor.
Well, Minutemen return to U.S. border watch.
A couple of interesting facts were brought forth yesterday on “This Week.” George Will talked about the Social Security Trust Fund Report and the need for hundreds of thousand of illegal immigrants to make yearly financial requirements. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich said that since we are an aging society, we need immigrants to keep our country moving forward. He also mentioned that illegal immigrants pay into Social Security automatically.
The one aspect of the illegal immigration argument that’s finally hit home for me is the employer enforcement and sanction elements. I’m now convinced that’s where we need to start.
According to the American Prospec’s 2005 Special Report, “Solving the Immigration Crisis,” of the 8 million employers in the U.S., there are only 500 investigators enforcing the immigration labor laws. Congress doesn't even bother to provide funding for employer sanctions and investigations. Is there any wonder we're in this mess?
These days, you can't talk about border security without mentioning Lou Dobbs. Now, I know I’m in the minority in Democratic circles, but I like the man, even if I regularly disagree with him. Dobbs’s attack on President Bush, who’s aligned with his corporate cronies and has no credibility whatsoever
on the issue, gives me great pleasure. But when Dobbs talks about McCain-Kennedy being “amnesty,” Dobbs is just plain wrong, because “amnesty” isn’t even the real problem with it.
Look at some of the specifics of McCain-Kennedy.
Do you see what I see? I see a dense program requiring a lot of technology that isn’t in place today. I see a long ramp up to making it work. I see a “Border Security Committee” coming. hen it mentions Mexico,
which right out of the gate is a trip to fantasyland. Mexico isn’t interested in doing anything. They’ve got it good with remittances, so why rock the Wells Fargo wagon?
I’m sorry to sound negative. I believe in a guest worker plan that includes fines, paying taxes, learning English, background checks, then waiting in line behind those who are already waiting for their chance, but eventually offering a path to citizenship. I just don’t believe in the hobgoblin that is those big bad illegal immigrants. It;s ridiculous.
But guest worker programs don't answer the problem, which is stemming the tide of illegal immigrants who continue to flood into this country for jobs.
After years of living in areas where the issue of illegal immigration rages and reading about the issue for years, I've finally come to one conclusion. It’s not much, but it’s one. I’m not saying it's the only solution, but it's definitely a start and somewhere we have to focus if we’re serious about stopping illegal immigration. Target employers. Maria Echaveste, writing in the American Prospect, was the final voice who converted me.
… … Historically, however, immigration policy has rarely focused on the pull of the labor market or the working conditions of workers (domestic or immigrant), but rather on the immigrants themselves — their race, their country of origin, their numbers, and their ability to become “American.” Only after 1973 did the idea of penalizing employers for hiring the unauthorized take root. Both the AFL-CIO and the NAACP supported this idea, motivated by legitimate worries that an unending supply of workers could undercut hard-fought gains of organized labor or that new competition with those on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder would reduce wages. Employers complained of new regulatory burdens. Advocates for the growing Hispanic and Asian populations complained about the potential for discrimination against U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents — with good reason, given America’s history.
Since 1986, we have invested billions of dollars in fences, technology, and manpower along the border and have not succeeded in reducing the flow of undocumented workers into our country. Yet the proposals in Congress to increase enforcement at the border and against immigrants continue unabated, including new efforts to require police officers, firefighters, teachers, and others to verify the legal status of those with whom they come into contact. This would create real hardship for those in need of services. Why not focus on the very place where the majority of illegal immigrants can be found — that is, at the workplace?
To achieve a workplace focus, we would need to be serious about enforcing penalties against employers. We could, as some have suggested, give full responsibility of investigation and penalty assessment to one agency. For instance, part of the Department of Labor’s mission is to inspect workplaces and enforce laws against employers who violate them.
Notwithstanding these existing problems, it is possible to conceive of a system for verifying the legal authority to work of all who are employed in the United States that would be accurate, universal, nondiscriminatory, neutral, and efficient. We need to build in privacy protections while guarding against employers using such a system to intimidate workers who are seeking to improve their working conditions and livelihoods. For example, we could require that the verifying agency provide information to both employers and employees. We need to build in a specified period of time for an employee to appeal the determinations. If we designed such a system and added strict liability with stiff penalties — in the European Union, employers are routinely fined $60,000 or more for each unauthorized employee — Labor Department investigators could focus on employers in low-wage industries or with high numbers of unverified workers, concentrating resources on them (rather than the current haphazard paper chase of tracking I-9 forms).
Many people who care deeply about the condition of immigrants and workers argue against employer sanctions or employer verification. They assert that better enforcement of minimum wage, overtime, safety rules, and other labor standards will deter employers from hiring the undocumented. I know firsthand that many employers who comply with other labor standards still hire the undocumented. Many businesses pay the minimum wage and have barely tolerable working conditions because there are sufficient undocumented workers willing to accept those terms. If we care about low-income workers in this country, we need to create pressure to improve their economic condition by reducing the supply of unauthorized workers. … …
I don’t want a fence. I want border agents.
I don’t want to deport hard working Latinos and others because of some notion that illegal immigrants hurt our economy. I also haven’t found any credible evidence that our economy will implode if we get tough. But a guest worker program and border agents won’t address the availability of jobs, which means desperate people who need to feed their family will still take the risk.
Target employers with serious fines by funding enforcement and investigative resources, with political pressure put on ICE, INS and Congress to give them the teeth they need to enforce the laws. I also want a whopping fine, big, huge, so employers will hurt.
It's here we run up against one of the reasons I like Lou Dobbs so much. He’s honest enough to attack the fact that though Republicans are the worst offenders, Democrats are also guilty of backing corporations over good policy, as well as siding with interest groups over sound immigration solutions.
Bottom line for me is that if we don’t go after the employers, we’ll never solve the problem. I wonder if anyone has the courage to challenge the corporations? I’m not close to being convinced.
Comments are closed.