Position Paper on Illegal Immigration

Attached to this letter is a position statement issued by members of an informal association of retired Border Patrol officers.

We have arrived at a consensus about the national debate on the issue of immigration reform. Based on that consensus we have prepared a position paper articulating our viewpoints, accompanied by justifications for each point of view.

Our group has an institutional knowledge that is deep and broad. There is recollection going back to the early 1950s represented here, and there is a cumulative experience base reckoned in terms of centuries. Among us are individuals who have served at all levels within the Border Patrol and its old parent organization, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Immigration reform is an issue that arises periodically in the national consciousness. The last time it rose to the level we see now was twenty years ago, when the Congress gave us the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Everyone who has signed this paper has first-hand recall of that act, and knows that while it may have changed immigration for this country, it neither reformed nor controlled it. The predictable results of it are the situation we see today.

It appears that there is a move under way to saddle the nation once again with law containing the same flaws found in the 1986 act, but now on scale unimagined at that time. We believe that the results for the nation will be disastrous if anything is passed that resembles what has been under debate in the Senate recently.

The nation has made demonstrable mistakes in the past in its efforts to control immigration. Let us, who were there to see them, remind the nation of the outcome and make suggestions for change.

Kent Lundgren, Coordinator, National Association of Former Border Patrol Agents, (425) 418-5466 lundgrenke@msn.com

We, the undersigned former officers of the United States Border Patrol, offer our views on the following matters now under debate in the nation.

• Illegal immigration. We believe that aliens residing in the United States must be here with the nation’s permission or they should leave or be removed. That begins by having a secure border and meaningful processes for screening those who wish to enter legally.

• Amnesty – by any name placed on it. We absolutely oppose any legislation that would allow aliens to remain in this country who have entered illegally or who have entered legally and remained here illegally.

• Employer sanctions. We support meaningful employer sanctions. Laws presently on the books are adequate tools for the purpose. Their use, though, has been subverted to meaninglessness through political and legal pressure initiated by those who benefit from the presence of illegal aliens. Those subversions must be minimized by a statement of purpose from the Congress and clear direction from the administration to the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice that those laws be aggressively enforced through administrative action and criminal prosecution.

• Guest worker program. We support a guest worker program in principle, believing that it can serve the national interest. However, we also believe that –

o Guest workers must be limited in what they may do, what they may benefit from under immigration law, and the program must be tightly controlled.

We do not delude ourselves, nor would we try to fool the American people into believing that the border can be made completely secure: it can’t. But it can be made secure enough.

What we can do, through the adoption and use of well-considered and effectively enforced laws, is gain control of a situation that now, in our opinion, threatens the national well-being. It will not happen overnight, or easily, but it can happen. To do less is to invite further chaos.

Buck Brandemuehl Chief of the Border Patrol, Hugh Brien Chief of the Border Patrol, Gene Rutledge Chief Patrol Agent, Warren C. Goodwin Asst. Chief Patrol Agent, Kent E. Lundgren Asst. Chief Patrol Agent, James S. Switzer Chief Patrol Agent, Edward Doherty Asst. District Director, Dewey Wotring Officer in Charge, Randy Williamson Supervisory Agent, David J. Stoddard Border Patrol Agent, Timothy N. Waller Special Agent, Walter Edwards Assoc. Regional Comm., William Chambers District Director, Leo J. Fernan Intelligence Officer, Candido Gutierrez Asst. Patrol Agent in Charge, Sherry Feltner-Redondo Patrol Agent in Charge, Edward Redondo, Jr. Supv. Border Patrol Agent, William White Border Patrol Pilot, A. Sam Garcia Border Patrol Agent, William R. Holly, Jr. Special Agent, Dave Nicholson Border Patrol Agent, Frank Pearce Senior Patrol Inspector, Ronald L. Fuhrmann Special Agent, Mark H Haynes Asst. Chief Patrol Agent, Stanley U. Spencer Chief Patrol Agent, Owen Lyons Patrol Inspector, James R. Dorcy, David John Castaneda Asst. Chief Patrol Agent, Gerald C. Jacobson Asst. Regional Director, Inv., Max G. Hyatt Asst. District Director, Inv., Joseph D. Cyr Senior Border Patrol Agent, James W. Clifford Patrol Agent in Charge, Eugene M. Botts Asst. District Director, Inv., A. Gary Laverty Supv. Special Agent, Richard Lensink Deputy Regional Chief, Robert E. Farrens Field Operations Supervisor, Norman Kary Regional Intelligence Officer, Ronald P. Weller Patrol Agent in Charge, David Drysdale, Claude E. Guyant Chief Patrol Agent, Gene Dickson Border Org. Crime Coord., Jerrell T. Edmison Special Agent, Allen E. Wells Asst. Chief Patrol Agent, David A. Mandel Patrol Agent in Charge, Harold M. Slocumb Patrol Agent in Charge, Jerry R. Chandler Asst. Chief Patrol Agent, Arthur Waddell Asst. Patrol Agent in Charge, George Geil District Director, Lawrence J. Ryan Patrol Inspector, Gene Wood Chief Patrol Agent, Thomas W. Laughlin Officer in Charge, Gerald D. Fasbender Officer in Charge, Roy Huntley, Marvin D. Mohrman District Director, George T. Somerville, Jr. Dep. District Director, William S. Hunter Supv. Border Patrol Agent, Allen E. Wells Asst. Chief Patrol Agent, David W. Wolfe Asst. Regional Commissioner, Stuart A. Dutcher Supv. Border Patrol Agent, Bud Geymer Supv. Criminal Investigator, Harry F. Malone Border Patrol Agent, Terry J. Macintosh Chief, Immigration Academy, Ray Harris Border Patrol Agent, Edward G. Woods Border Patrol Pilot, Robert D. McCord Chief Patrol Agent, Larry Sprinkle Supv. Special Agent, Walt Moser Supv. Patrol Inspector, John D. Neal Asst. Chief Patrol Agent, Thomas J. Cronin Deputy Chief of the Border Patrol, William G. Ingersoll Dep. Chief Patrol Agent, James E. Walsh Officer in Charge, Gary H. Labbe Associate Chief of the Border Patrol, Robert L. Ackerman Officer in Charge, Frank D. Thurlow Supv. Border Patrol Agent, Paul F. Edwards Patrol Inspector, Charles E. Hensley Deputy Chief Patrol Agent, William H. Hickey Patrol Agent in Charge, Ted L. Bader Patrol Agent in Charge, Roderick R. Smith Special Agent, Anti-Smuggling, William E. Glenn Regional Intelligence Officer, William J. Roche Patrol Inspector, Jeffrey M. Fields Patrol Agent in Charge, Michael Williams Chief of the Border Patrol, Perry W. Steele, Jr. District Director, Larry Nave Supv. Immigration Inspector, Jerry Armstrong Chief Patrol Agent, Arno A. Henderson, Jr. Supv. Border Patrol Agent, Jesse F. Tabor Chief Patrol Agent, Robert Sprekelmeyer, Thomas B. Gray Supv. Border Patrol Agent, Robert Himmel Senior Special Agent, Dale A. Lauborough Border Patrol Agent, Jack W. Wells Patrol Inspector, John J. Frecker Senior Patrol Agent, Tom Shelton Patrol Inspector, Delbert E. Guy Asst. Regional Commissioner, Investigations, Richard Lee Jones, Sr. Senior Special Agent, Dr. Frank J. Hawkins Patrol Agent, Thomas McKenney Patrol Agent in Charge, Kenneth C. Tilsley Patrol Agent in Charge, George E. Glass Supv. Border Patrol Agent, Charles J. Brinkman Border Patrol Agent, Daniel Walker Border Patrol Agent, William S. King Chief Patrol Agent, Robert M. Trent Asst. Director, Immigration Officer Academy, Adreas Funk Border Patrol Agent, Arthur K. Dunlap Border Patrol Agent, David Rhodin Officer in Charge, Jack Pool Supv. Border Patrol Agent, Stephen S. Gregg Special Agent in Charge Anti-Smuggling, John J. Conlin Border Patrol Agent, Albert C. Kinney Border Patrol Agent, Ronald C. Chandler District Director, Paul F. Edwards Patrol Inspector, Gerald L. Richmond Border Patrol Agent, C. Monroe Seamon Officer in Charge, William F. Mayberry Asst. District Director Investigations, Paul Jones Asst. Chief Patrol Agent, Jackie G. Mason Border Patrol Pilot, Robert J. Stille Supv. Border Patrol Agent, Paul W. Cheek Supv. Criminal Investigator, Jack Gorman Chief Patrol Agent, Tom DeWitt Border Patrol Agent, Homer A. Taylor Border Patrol Agent, David P. Ward Asst. Patrol Agent in Charge, John H. Colson Patrol Inspector, Robert D. McCord Chief Patrol Agent, Donald Barley Patrol Agent in Charge, Stephen C. Donnelly Special Agent, Anti-Smuggling, Raymond E. Young Special Agent, Anti-Smuggling, John K. Bostrom Officer in Charge, Dan Gibson Special Agent, Robert A. Millin Special Agent, Anti-smuggling, Michael J. Sheehy Deputy Chief Patrol Agent, Hugh J. Rushton Chief Patrol Agent, Allen R. Wuhrman Asst. District Director Investigations, William J. Roche Patrol Inspector, Lloyd D. VanHuss Asst. District Director, F. Paul Murphy Deputy Asst. Commissioner, Inspections Ray Penn District Director, Thomas R. Donalson Senior Patrol Officer Special Detail, John D. Adams Supv. Special Agent, Robert Gilson Asst. Chief Patrol Agent, James M. Robinson Senior Special Agent, Edward M. Hellekson Senior Patrol Inspector, Jimmie W. Willis Senior Special Agent, George Branch, Armand Olvera Asst. Chief Patrol Agent, Michael Molloy Patrol Agent in Charge, George F. Carter Officer in Charge, Leonard E. Rowland Asst. District Director Deportations, Carey James Chief Patrol Agent, Douglass Sullivan Supv. Special Agent, Buryl L. Williams Supv. Border Patrol Agent, Virgil Speer Patrol Agent in Charge, William R. Holman Asst. Chief Patrol Agent, Robert Bollier Patrol Agent in Charge, Jack Holmes Asst. District Director, Investigations, Ray Wolstenholme Supv. Criminal Investigator, Richard Thut Assoc. Regional Commissioner, Operations, Harry VanLeuvan Supv. Special Agent, Eddie A. Hensley Senior Patrol Agent, Charles E. Cunningham Port Director, Larry L. Hill Patrol Agent in Charge, Richard Calhoon Patrol Inspector, Walter Schullstrom Patrol Inspector, Melvin W. Heck Asst. Chief Patrol Agent, Raymond J. Downie Senior Special Agent, Warren Kramer Senior Special Agent, Robert E. Wooten Patrol Agent in Charge, James M. Burns Patrol Inspector, Charles W. Thompson Asst. Chief Patrol Agent, Edward J. Kennedy Chief, Air Operations, F. Braxton Mohler Patrol Agent in Charge, Harry E. Surface Chief Patrol Agent, William W. Metcalf Asst. District Director, Investigations, William E. Johnson Patrol Agent in Charge, Sammie J. Stewart Deputy Regional Chief Patrol Agent, Clifton J. Rogers Asst. District Director, Norman G. Schoss Asst. District Director, Deporations, Jack A. Carnley Patrol Agent in Charge, William L Bonnette Jr Deputy Asst. Commissioner, Border Patrol Roger P. Carly Patrol Agent in Charge, J. R. Fite Assistant Regional Commissioner, Border Patrol, Dan Pursglove Supv. Criminal Investigator, Benton L. Adcock Asst. District Director, Deportations, Joe B. Bennett Chief Patrol Agent, George Zachary Taylor Supv. Border Patrol Agent, David L. Carmichael Supv. Special Agent, Michael J. Schroeder Assoc. Commissioner, Management, Ronald L. Smith Asst. Chief Patrol Agent, William H. Laverty Border Patrol Agent, G. Alan Ferguson, Patrick Comey* Special Agent, Donald H. Russell District Director, Billy J. Isbell Patrol Inspector, David B. Ham Asst. Chief Patrol Agent, *Denotes non-USBP signer.

Every sovereign nation, in order to protect its citizens, has the right and the duty to control who enters, passes through, or remains within its borders. Only United States citizens have a right to enter and remain in the United States. All others are granted this privilege through various acts of the Congress.

We wish to state immediately that there is no bias, ethnic, racial, or national, in our position. We recognize that those from Mexico who are in the United States illegally, while highly visible, are only a part of the problem.

The U.S. has traditionally adopted immigration laws aimed at protecting us in four areas. To the nation’s demonstrable detriment, we have ignored those reasons for forty years and more. We now pay the price.

• Public safety – Criminals (variously described over the years) may not enter the U.S. legally or remain here absent extraordinary permission. Alien criminals have become so common that they contribute heavily to crime statistics, and they are a very expensive portion of the population of all our prisons (statistics available upon request). If our immigration laws were rigorously enforced we could reduce the impact of criminal aliens on our society. A secure border is the first line of defense. However, there must be vigorous follow-up with interior enforcement.

• Public health – At one time carriers of contagious diseases, or those afflicted with diseases affecting their ability to support themselves, were not allowed to enter the U.S. Now we see aliens with diseases seldom found among Americans in recent history working in service positions, such as waiters, cooks, housekeepers, or even domestic servants. Aliens by the thousand avail themselves of U.S. medical care, with the burden borne by the taxpayer – many come here specifically for that purpose. While it may be good for them, and for us that they be healthy, it is not good that they be here at all.

• Jobs –Like any other commodity, sweat becomes cheaper as it becomes more available. A surfeit of cheap labor cannot help but depress wages. At this time illegal aliens are filling, not just traditional jobs in agriculture (which is no small thing – within our recollections Americans did that work, until they were priced out of the market), but unskilled or low-skilled jobs in service, construction, and industry. This is happening at a time when tens of thousands of jobs are being sent overseas. Employers argue that they need to have cheap labor to compete with foreign companies. Well, perhaps – that is a subject for discussion beyond the scope of this paper, and if it is true it can be addressed by law. But there are products and services that do not face foreign competition – drywall for an American house, for example, cannot be hung in China. Those jobs are becoming all the more precious in our country, and those employers should pay what the untainted domestic labor market would demand. American workers should not have their wages depressed by foreign competition within their own borders, but they do.

• National Security – Need we say anything other than “September 11, 2001”? While that was a spectacular, tragic example, it is far from the only example - but it should be enough to make this point: We must guard our borders closely.

Backers of a plan to permit aliens who are here illegally to remain here wish that their program were not referred to as “amnesty”. However, the term is commonly understood by both the public and those who would benefit from it, so we will use it.

All of us who are endorsing this position paper have vivid recollections of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. We note that most of the arguments made now for reform echo precisely those made then.

Many of us participated in its administration, and saw first-hand its defects. We list them here.

• Rampant Fraud. Then, as is similarly proposed now, applicants for amnesty had to have been in the U.S. for certain periods, or had to have worked in the U.S. for certain periods.

o By the literal hundreds of thousands they submitted fraudulent documents showing presence in the U.S. or employment in agriculture during the requisite periods. No statistics on how much fraud there was were kept, but anecdotal evidence at the time from some offices indicated that it was as high as thirty percent.

o Absent absolute proof of fraud, which in practical terms meant an admission from the applicant, it was expected by program management in Washington that applications would be approved. An office with too many denials was subject to close scrutiny.

o Fraud discovered in an application was not grounds for deportation. An applicant was, to all intents and purposes, immune from enforcement action based on fraud in his application or anything discovered in the amnesty process. There were cases where a criminal background was discovered, but that could not form the basis for deportation proceedings because the process was privileged.

o Thousands of people went into the lucrative, low-risk business of creating and selling fraudulent documents. Thousands of employers provided fraudulent documents to alien employees to enable them to stay here to continue working, and still other thousands provided documents to aliens in what they saw as a humanitarian gesture. We leave it to the reader to decide what the impact of such illegality has on the fabric of the nation, especially when it forms the basis for an individual’s legal status here.

• Judicial extension of the program. Congress passed the 1986 Act anticipating that certain defined classes of aliens would benefit. Those decisions were made through political compromises, which is how the nation runs. However, interest groups who believed their interests were not adequately served took dozens of cases to court, shopping carefully for judges whom they believed would be sympathetic to them. Those lawsuits became class actions that resulted in the benefits of amnesty being extended far beyond what Congress defined. The results were so far-reaching that it was not until last year, 2005, that the final cases went to rest. We see no reason to suspect that a new amnesty would be any different.

• Chain migration. This is the phrase used to describe the practice of immigrants coming legally to this country based on their relationship to someone already here legally. Anecdotes indicate that the U.S. Department of State, which issues visas, believes that six family members ultimately follow to join each alien who achieves legal status here. An amnesty for ten million people may, over time, increase our population by seventy million.

Recognizing that jobs are the primary factor drawing aliens illegally to our country, in 1986 the Congress wrote employer sanctions into the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

In brief, the law requires (it is still in effect, although moribund as a practical matter) that every employer confirm, by examination of documents, two things about any person before he is hired; his identity, and his eligibility to work legally in this country. He must make record of the documents examined. If the job applicant cannot prove both, he is not to be hired. Failure to examine those documents is grounds for enforcement action from warnings to criminal prosecution.

The theory is stronger than the actual effect. As we see nationwide, illegal aliens by the millions have jobs. This is due to a number of factors:

• Easy availability of fraudulent documents. For a near-nominal fee (commonly under fifty dollars; often closer to ten), an illegal alien can purchase documents purporting to identify him and prove legal status in the U.S. They present them to employers with impunity, knowing that their chances of being detected are slim, and if it happens, their chances of being arrested are slimmer still, and their chances of being prosecuted or otherwise penalized for it are nil.

• Inability of employers to verify validity of documents. There is no mechanism in place that allows an employer to verify that documents presented to him are valid. At best, he may, months later, receive a report from the Social Security Administration that a number and name on a card presented to him do not go together, but that is not an effective deterrent.

• Reckless disregard of the law by employers. As a practical matter, due to low enforcement priorities, an employer need not fear being discovered violating the law. And if found out he will not be penalized unless the violation is by demonstrable design, and involves large numbers of aliens on a repeated basis.

• Judicial or political interference with enforcement. This is the major factor, for it affects all the others. Time after time the agency has undertaken effective actions against one employer or another, or even classes of employers, who are flagrant violators of the law. And far too often that very effectiveness is a death warrant for the effort. Congressmen or Senators representing the affected party suggest to the agency that it desist, or face unpleasant bureaucratic or budgetary consequences. Judges tie officers up in court and enjoin elements of the effort, or the effort itself. Finally one gets the message: lay off. The wise officer turns his efforts to more fruitful, less painful operations, and a program dies.

The problem then, is not law; there are all the legal tools needed, dating back to 1986.

o Make it possible, quick, and easy for employers to check the eligibility for employment of a job applicant. Legislators should support HR 98 and the REAL ID ACT, HR418, which establish a means to do that.

o Levy administrative fines against aliens who present fraudulent documents. We note that that law is on the books, it has been since 1990, but in our collective recollection, it was never used to any significant degree. This is potentially a very valuable tool, in that it removes the profit from illegal employment.

• Increase the risks for employers who willfully or recklessly ignore the law. That will require increased enforcement personnel in the interior. It will also be necessary in some way to reign in judicial activity in civil cases filed with the design of inhibiting the program. And members of Congress must become less active in protecting their constituents who do wrong from legitimate enforcement actions.

As with any law, it is not the severity of sanction for violation, but the certainty of it that makes it effective.

As an aside, we note here that much has been made of the point that the nation cannot deport ten or eleven or twelve or however many million illegal aliens. That is probably true, considering the nature of our society (which we treasure no less than anyone else), but it is also a straw man in the argument.

We do not have to deport each and every one. There need not be massive sweeps and knocks on doors at midnight. Remove the impetus for the illegals to be here and most of them will eventually go home. It requires, not a severe blow, but relentless, gentle pressure to bring it about. Jobs are the most effective pressure point.

First, we wish to say emphatically that we find the phrase “Work Americans won’t do” demeaning to the American worker. Americans have done every type of work now done by illegal aliens (including some of it done by signers of this document), and Americans would do it again if they were paid a decent wage. They have been priced out of the labor market in many fields by cheap sweat, and that is a national disgrace made worse by insulting statements.

That being said, the United States is in a period of full employment now, even allowing for the presence of numbers of illegal aliens variously estimated to be between nine and twelve million. Labor is in short supply.

What this means to the American employer is that he must find willing hands where he can. This economic pressure has led to him hiring without due regard to the immigration status of his employees. If employer sanctions are to function as desired, then the ethical employer must be given an economic safety valve when he finds himself in genuine, demonstrable need of workers.

There is precedent. In 1942 the U.S. government allowed the entry of Mexican workers (called braceros) to work in agriculture and on railroad track repair crews, critical jobs left vacant by Americans who went to war. The railroad program terminated with the end of the war in 1945, but the agricultural program was carried on until 1964. It died amid claims of fraud in payment of wages and mistreatment of workers. Its legacy of cheap agricultural wages is with us still.

There is further precedent in the H-2A agricultural labor program, which has been used primarily to support agriculture on the east coast.

Each of those programs had flaws, weaknesses, and abuses by all parties. Carefully crafted legislation can deal with each problem – we can learn from experience if we will.

• An employer who can credibly demonstrate that he cannot obtain unskilled workers in adequate numbers to fill his needs at a reasonable, living wage, should be allowed to bring them to this country under contract to work for him, and him alone. This will not be a simple program to design or administer, but with regard to previous experience, it can be done.

• He must post a bond with the government for each worker, guaranteeing that it will not fall to the government to locate and remove the individual.

• He must provide a living wage to assure that his employees do not become a public burden. For the same reason, he must provide health insurance and pay into the workman’s compensation program for each employee.

• An alien worker is admitted to work for a particular employer for a specified time, with the understanding that he must depart upon completion of the contract. To maintain a degree of control over that, a significant portion of his wages must be paid into an escrow account in a U.S. bank, to be released to him only after he reports to a U.S. consulate abroad.

• He is ineligible to draw upon any public source of income or support under any circumstances except workman’s compensation.

• His presence here does not provide any justification for the entry of family members to join him.

• Failure to abide by the terms of his contract and terms of admission to the U.S. will result in his deportation and disqualification for any legal status for some specified period of time.

Such a program must not be seen as a source of cheap labor for the employer, but simply as a stopgap to fill his need when workers are otherwise unavailable at a reasonable, living wage.

At such time as employment should fall below the full level, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, (and it will, eventually), this program should be reexamined.

in post 16 you posted a link to a 69 page document.

perhaps you would like to point out what part of that document you would like to quote.

here is one part

"The trend towards aging of the U.S. population as
the proportion of older people increases is also significant.

Today’s older population is larger than it has ever
been in the nation’s history, and the overall median
age in 2000 (35.3 years) was also higher than it has ever
been.96 This refl ects a 28% jump in the number of U.S.
residents between 35 and 64 years of age, and a 4%
decline in the number of people aged 18-34 between
1990 and 2000.97

This aging segment of the population, the nation’s
“Baby Boomers” (born between 1946 and 1964), represent
over 78 million or 26% of the total U.S. population.98 They
are wealthier, spend more money, consume more
resources, have more homes per capita, and move
more often than any generation before them.99 This is
important because they represent both a large percent of
the total American population and very high resource
consumption, the combination of which is signifi cant in
terms of environmental impact.

In addition, a substantial share of America’s population
age 65 and older moves to and settles in “retirement
magnet” states such as Arizona, Florida, and Nevada,
where pressure on natural resources (especially water) is
already evident. Over the next quarter century, the proportion of elderly Americans is projected to double in at least 14 states in the South and West. This is a result of the inmigration of retirees and out-migration of younger adults

regarding post 18 and the drop in young native born employed,

if you go here to page 10

http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol13/7/13-7.pdf#search='demographic%20changes%20in%20young%20males%2020002005'

you will find that from 1991 to 2001 the mean age of employed men in the US rose from 38 to 40 or the work force is getting older.

this means fewer native born young men.

further if you go here

http://www.urban.org/publications/309109.html

you will find in table 1A that men ages 15-34 declined from 34 % of the population in 1985 to 29% in 1997.

That would indicate a need to import men ages 15-34.

If you click on the link in post 16 and go to page 10 you will find that

"This reflects a 28% jump in the number of U.S.
residents between 35 and 64 years of age, and a 4%
decline in the number of people aged 18-34 between
1990 and 2000."

When population of people aged 18-34 declines by 4%, it follows that the number of employed people aged 18-34 should also decline.

The immigrants are taking up the slack.

Gentlemen, pay close attention to the text of the position paper and you'll find you have little to argue over.

Note that it calls for a guest worker program when the domestic labor situation justifies it. The statement is made that there is precedent for a guest worker program, as indeed there is, ample precedent. One of you noted the Chinese - they were the first of the "guest workers" brought here with the government's blessing.

You'll further note that it does not call for a guest worker program solely for agriculture. The door is open for any employer who can demonstrate that he cannot obtain domestic workers at a decent wage ("prevailing wage" no longer being an applicable standard, prevailing wages having been depressed noticeably by illegal alien workers).

Pilgrim

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.