What's Wrong With the Proposals for a New Guestworker Program?

fairus ^ | jan 04 | fairus

[VU4G10]

Proposals for a massive new "guestworker" program would:

• threaten homeland security
• grant amnesty for law-breakers, a step overwhelmingly opposed by the American public
• establish a back door immigration program
• threaten the jobs and wages of American workers.

The politicians pushing a guestworker amnesty know that Americans staunchly oppose amnesty, and so they shy away from calling it what it really is, instead cloaking it in terms like "earned legalization" or "normalization of status."  They are deliberately misleading the American public.

THEY SAY that the overwhelming majority of people entering the country illegally pose no threat to our country and that if we allow them enter in a lawful manner, we will enhance our homeland security.

THE TRUTH is that there are an estimated 8-11 million illegal aliens in the United States, and it only took 19 to perpetrate the attacks of September 11.  Our immigration system has become overburdened and unmanageable due to mass illegal immigration.  As a result, there is little reason to feel confident that, absent a massive infusion of new resources, which is highly unlikely given current fiscal realities, anything approaching thorough background checks can be conducted on applicants for a guestworker program.  Even without the added burden of an amnesty, people like Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric who masterminded the first World Trade Center bombing, and Mohammed Atta, the leader of the September 11 attacks, managed to slip through the screening process.  There is every reason to believe that adding new responsibilities to an overtaxed system will make us less safe.

No one has yet explained how the millions of applicants would be given security checks or whether that’s even remotely feasible, given an already overburdened immigration enforcement system. Immigration officials would have to deal with hundreds of thousands of more applicants a year, to say nothing of how we would verify eligibility for any of the eight million potential applicants already here illegally, particularly with many of them armed with false identity documents.  When the immigration system can’t adequately perform its most essential mission, adding in the responsibility for security checks, tracking, and removal when necessary for millions of participants in a guestworker program will guarantee disaster.

THEY SAY that the legislation is not an amnesty, but that guestworkers who participate in the program will be eligible for permanent resident status.

THE TRUTH is that the proposal would be an amnesty with an “apprenticeship” provision.  Illegal aliens who are already in the U.S. would  be eligible to apply.  Thus, they would be excused for having violated our immigration laws in the first place, and then be rewarded again with permanent residency--thus making the law, in effect, a double amnesty.  Calling it something else does not change the reality that this proposal is a massive amnesty program.

THEY SAY the program will help regain control of the borders and stop illegal immigration.

THE TRUTH is that the proposal does nothing to discourage future illegal immigration or enforcement of our immigration laws, ensuring that any guestworker or illegal alien who wants to remain in the U.S. can and will.  In fact, about one-third of illegal aliens in the country right now arrived on legal visas and simply never went home.  In addition, it does nothing to strengthen border security to ensure that only guestworkers, and not terrorists, are being admitted.

THEY SAY that spouses and children of illegal aliens may also be eligible to participate in the visa program.

THE TRUTH is that this would be an amnesty not only for those who qualify for this “guestworker” program, but a simultaneous amnesty for their dependents, whether or not they are workers.  Aside from expanding the amnesty to include non-workers, it also grants a benefit to the dependents of illegal aliens that is not afforded to the families of other guestworkers who never violated the law.  Moreover, it undermines the stated – if flawed – purpose of a guestworker program:  that foreign workers come temporarily and then return home.  Employers would be able to utilize a virtually limitless supply of guestworkers at low wages, while the expense for services like education and health care for dependent family members would have to be picked up by taxpayers.

THEY SAY that an electronic job registry operated through the Department of Labor will allow employers to post jobs and American workers would have the first chance to apply.  Moreover, the jobs would have to be offered again at the end of the three-year period, and that workers’ visas would be renewed only if no Americans are willing to take them.

THE TRUTH is that in the estimation of the General Accounting Office and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, the provisions in existing guestworker programs that are intended to ensure that American workers get first crack at jobs have been a complete failure.  Even if the political will existed to prevent employers from bypassing American workers in favor of foreign guestworkers – which there doesn’t – the Labor Department does not have the resources to monitor the hiring process.  A federal government that managed to fine a grand total of 13 employers nationwide in 2002 for violating employer sanctions laws cannot be counted on to enforce the provisions of a guestworker program either.

THEY SAY that BSIIA would be a market-driven program that will negate the reasons why employers hire illegal aliens.

THE TRUTH is that under BSIIA, there would not even be a prevailing wage requirement, meaning that employers will be able to offer wages far below what most Americans would be willing to accept, thereby creating an artificial need for guestworkers.  In effect, the law would grant legal sanction to employers who want to hire workers at low wages and limited leverage.  One of the primary purposes of our immigration laws is to prevent employers from undermining wages and working conditions of American workers.

THEY SAY that the program would prevent abuse of foreign workers by affording them mobility and the ability to file grievances against abusive employers.

THE TRUTH is that the mobility of guestworkers would still be very limited and their ability to change jobs would depend on finding another employer who was willing to go through the procedure of posting a job and wading through the bureaucratic red tape.  The primary interest of the workers would be to hold a job for six years in order to qualify for permanent residency.  Moreover, at the end of the “apprenticeship” period, when the guestworker would be granted permanent residency and would gain bargaining power, there is no reason to expect that the employer would not seek another guestworker who is willing to work at below-market wages.

THEY SAY that the program would prevent deaths along the border.

THE TRUTH is that U.S. immigration laws are not responsible for the deaths along the border – it is the violation of our immigration laws that is  responsible.  If there is any culpability on the part of the American government, it is in its failure to deter illegal immigration by aggressively enforcing laws that prohibit illegal aliens from working here or accessing public benefits.  Sending a clear signal that illegal entry to the U.S. will not be rewarded would have the desired effect of dissuading people from placing their lives and safety into the hands of unscrupulous smugglers.  Besides, when the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE) adopted a measure that demonstrably cut down the likelihood of border deaths – by repatriating illegal alien crossers who were apprehended in Arizona to border towns in Texas – the open borders lobby protested, charging that the program was unfair to illegal aliens.

THEY SAY the program will provide workers when and while they’re needed.

THE TRUTH is that when the economy takes a downturn, there will be millions of guestworkers in the U.S. without a job, without a home, without health care, and with no intention of returning to their home countries.  The guestworkers’ unemployment problems become the public’s burden.

[WOSG]

"The point is not to eliminate immigration. It is to control who comes in and how many to admit."

Agreed.

That is why the hyper-ventilation over this program is mis-placed.

The guest worker program is a way to channel the immigration and regularize the currently underground economy.

Too many here seem to not want ANY immigration. So let me ask you all: What is the proper amount of legal immigration (per year) in terms of our percentage of population?
(eg. 1%, 2%, etc.)
And what would be the best *reasons* for immigration? waiting job? family links? send a big check to the US govt?

"The euphemism "guest worker" used to describe this amnesty is a lie cloaked in fancy dress. " That is not a serious comment. I've refuted that point elsewhere. Amnesty is granting gree cards, and this doesnt do that. It's not amnesty.

"Those illegals who seek legal status have no loyalty to this country, nor have they pledged fealty to the United States of America. They come for financial and selfish gain...period." And many legal immigrants come for financial gain. What's the problem with that?

What if the 8 million illegals were swedish women coming here to staff tanning salons and snag ski instructor jobs. would you be that bent out of shape about it?

[Thumper1960]

If the solutions are too hard for you to handle, allow those of us who don't mind getting our hands dirty do the heavy lifting.

Dealing with it is the American way. Just letting things happen is a plan for disaster.

[Major_Risktaker]

[Kevin Curry]

CJ sees great virtue in Bush's modern-day plantation society where the new darkies contract to be indentured servants for three years. Someone needs to do those filthy, dreary, monotonous jobs that Massa CJ refuses to do.

[Thumper1960]

What if the 8 million illegals were swedish women coming here to staff tanning salons and snag ski instructor jobs. would you be that bent out of shape about it?

Again.

"The point is not to eliminate immigration. It is to control who comes in and how many to admit."

Swedish, Italian, Filipino, whatever.....the point is the same. Especially, in these times,..."The point is not to eliminate immigration. It is to control who comes in and how many to admit."

[WOSG]

I see your point, but makeup on a pig is still a pig. In other words, the key word you used was "controls". If we assume that it actually "controls" non-citizens in a manner conducive to assimilation, you're correct."

Whoa, the guest worker program encourages the workers to GO HOME, with the setaside for the money for soc sec ... thus serving exactly what you think would be appropriate. Non-assimilators return to country of origin!!

Now, I postulated in another post that this would likely lead to 3 streams of migrants: The 'stayers' who try to get green cards; 'revolving door workers'; and *deportees*.

"But by the very proposal I do not believe that to be the case. Even if "guest workers" they're still here and must assimilate; or destroy the culture that is supposed to assimilate them." This to me is beyond hype.. Get serious! Does hispanic TV "destroy your culture"? Whatabout Chinese restaurants? Or the ethnic neighborhoods in Chicago?

"I was talking about the projected numbers. Yes, you are quite right, historically the rates were not sufficient to do harm. But that's not what we're talking about in this forum. We're talking about proposals for future policy."

There is NOTHING in this Bush proposal that would come even close to the numbers of immigrants in the 1900 era. Any projections HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS PROPOSAL! So it is based on fearmongering IMHO.

"Characterize it as you like, but it's true."

A level of immigration no greater than we successfully absorbed before will destroy us? Hardly "true", more like a doomsday prediction that is contrary to our previous experience.

Look, I am for fixing the problems of illegal immigration. It's bad and we need to have the guts to enforce our laws. I am just against this specious, over-the-top chicken-little nonsense that the world will end because illegal alien workers that fix our roofs and mow our lawns are going to destroy America.

Get real, please.

"This has been proven time and again in history."
Like where? And dont say the Romans. I know my Roman history, and that's bunk.

[ableChair]

Uncle. I don't get it. What does that mean?

[gubamyster]

ping

[WOSG]

" Swedish, Italian, Filipino, whatever.....the point is the same. Especially, in these times,..."The point is not to eliminate immigration. It is to control who comes in and how many to admit."

Right. And so it does seem a wise policy to have a temporary guest worker program in the set of visas, so that we can let workers in without necessarily letting in the whole family, the way green cards would.

Who comes in. Okay, who and how many should come in by your standards?

[luvbach1]

Steeeriiikke! You knocked down all the pins! Too many are oblivious of the multitudinous negative implications of the proposed "Guest worker" program; unfortunately, including the president. But you delineated them so well. But, alas, we are the choir, are we not?

[WOSG]

It is simple to avoid the problem of illegals, or for that matter legal immigrants, with questionable motives or actions:

Deportation on any but minor charges.

Thanks again to Lamar Smith, *my* Congressman, for helping to protect our homeland security and borders. Deporting felons automatically was his idea. The Liberals *hate* that kind of stuff.

[WOSG]

uh, the link's not working.

[Thumper1960]

Just because the illegal is already here does not negate the fact that the illegal is, indeed, illegal. The illegal should go back to his/her country of origin and apply for admittance to the US. The legal and programmatic route. We are a nation of laws. The basis for civil society is adherence to laws and rules enacted for good social order. Applicants for admission should be screened for suitability. Undesirables should be denied admission. This is simple logic.

[Zipporah]

Maybe I linked it incorrectly.. here is the url:

http://www.sqlife.org/evansarticle.htm

[Thumper1960]

Some of us are the choir. Others seem to be tone deaf.

[ableChair]

"Whoa, the guest worker program encourages the workers to GO HOME, with the setaside for the money for soc sec ... thus serving exactly what you think would be appropriate. Non-assimilators return to country of origin!! "

Ummm, they're here for three years. Doesn't matter what you call them. They must assimilate or destroy the culture they're in. Besides, we've already pointed out in this forum that faithfully "returning" to their "country of origin" is highly unlikely.

"Now, I postulated in another post that this would likely lead to 3 streams of migrants: The 'stayers' who try to get green cards; 'revolving door workers'; and *deportees*."

Okay.

This to me is beyond hype.. Get serious! Does hispanic TV "destroy your culture"? Whatabout Chinese restaurants? Or the ethnic neighborhoods in Chicago?

Bravo! You're catching on. Yes, if the rate at which this occurs is high enough. Again, you keep referring to the past. We're talking about rates hitherto unseen. So, cliches and propaganda lines used as red herrings won't work with me. Try sticking to the point. We're not talking about today or yesterday. We're talking about future policy. But in any case, it's funny you'd call this "hype"...taken from a favorite propaganda manual? The process of cultural change by mass and dramatic influxes of very different peoples is manifest even to a child; the proverbial elephant in the living room. But you don't see that. You really believe that has no impact at all on a culture? Who needs to get real, here?

"There is NOTHING in this Bush proposal that would come even close to the numbers of immigrants in the 1900 era. Any projections HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS PROPOSAL! So it is based on fearmongering IMHO."

A limitless spigot opened to allow anybody and his entire extended family a relatively high paying job in the United States, the wealthiest country in the world and to do so without fear of deportation. Nah, there's nothing in the Bush proposal to suggest uncontrolled migration as a result of this.

"A level of immigration no greater than we successfully absorbed before will destroy us? Hardly "true", more like a doomsday prediction that is contrary to our previous experience."

IMHO, your view is fundamentally nihilistic. The data and facts speak for themselves. see below.

"Look, I am for fixing the problems of illegal immigration. It's bad and we need to have the guts to enforce our laws. I am just against this specious, over-the-top chicken-little nonsense that the world will end because illegal alien workers that fix our roofs and mow our lawns are going to destroy America." Get real, please."

Cliches, cliches. I swear it sounds like you've been trained to use cliches. Fascinating. So, you're suggesting that an infinite rate of immigration is sustainable by any nation? Oh, that's right, you think the rate won't change. see below.

"Like where? And dont say the Romans. I know my Roman history, and that's bunk."

Hmmm, funny. I figured you'd say that. I'm not your teacher. Go read a history book. It is not my job to educate you, it is your job to know the facts when you enter a discussion. There are so many examples of it you could choke on it. It's plain as day in any entry-level University textbook. You're attempting to drop a red herring in so you don't have to explain your nihilism or lack of reason. But this doevetails nicely into my point about nihilists. It is evident to me that you are predisposed to conclude that illegal immigration is a great thing; almost certainly because of some personality bias. A nihilist ignores facts and reality, insists on having others educate them and ignores solid reason (like the definition of 'rate' or a 'derivative'). You folks are all the same. If you actually take the time to tear apart their arguments you only find that they're internally inconsistent babble, full of red herrings and founded on nihilism. I'm not sure what to tell you but I assure you propaganda put on this forum will be thrashed.

[WOSG]

Everything you say is consistent with what Bush said today.
He wants would-be immigrants to be obeying the laws.

My point about 'they are already here' is simply to refute the chicken-little sky-is-falling hyperbole. If large-scale illegal immigration were the death of our country, we'd be dead already.

Furthermore, Bush's intention is to cut illegal immigration, not increase it.

[Cold Heat]

McCain's proposal

Yeah, the statements made in the article do not match the Bush proposal.

No green cards in the Bush proposal.

BTW, the current law says the sanction for illegal entry is a three year probation.(minimum)

So, with that in mind, they all can apply for a green card in three years regardless.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Does anyone have data on last amnesty of excess people
brought in legally by people who were granted amnesty?