Immigration

MAKING GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE means . . . legislating based on facts, not unjustified fears and prejudices . . . understanding history, and the fact that almost all of us are the descendants of immigrants . . . considering all the consequences of a proposal before acting.

POSITION SUMMARY:

Border Security and Immigration Policy are separate issues and must be dealt with separately.

I favor amnesty, with no penalties, and a path to citizenship.

DISCUSSION:

New Mexico, like much of the southwest, has a different history of immigration.  In New Mexico, we have many families who can trace their families back to a time before New Mexico was a State, and even to a time before America was a country.  To much of the Hispanic population of New Mexico, it is the people from the East who are the immigrants.                   

Today, the immigration “issue” is complicated by arguments relating to a vast array of concerns -- national security; the effect of immigration on job opportunities; the demands placed on government for services such as education, health care, welfare and many other services.

Many of these arguments are unfounded, and not relevant to the central question.  Therefore, before discussing what we should do, we need to separate truth and fiction:  

We do NOT have an "IMMIGRATION PROBLEM":  We have crime problems.  We have welfare problems.  We have terrorism problems.  We have economic problems.  And we have people who blame these problems on "illegal" immigrants.

"Immigration policy” should not be used as a tool so solve social problems. Immigration policy should reflect our history of welcoming diversity. The other “problems” that are improperly blamed on immigration should be addressed through changes in the welfare system, the criminal justice system, and other government programs—NOT BY STOPPING IMMIGRATION.

Controlling Immigration is NOT Essential to NATIONAL SECURITY: Immigration reform and border  control are two separate issues--and they should not be confused.  Border control is a matter of national security.  But when border control becomes a tool for limiting the entry of a specific population it has exceeded its proper role.

Virtually every legislative proposal dealing with border fences, border patrols and other forms of immigrant interdiction has focused on the U.S.–Mexican border.  But those who pose a risk to America’s national security are just as likely to attempt to enter the United States from Canada as from Mexico.  Until these proposals seek to secure the U.S.-Canadian border as fully, and by the same means, as they address the security of the U.S.-Mexican border, they must be seen for what they are — racist appeals to that portion of the population that opposes the growth of the Hispanic population.

“Illegal” Immigrants Do NOT Unfairly Benefit From SOCIAL SERVICES:   Those who seek massive immigration reform often base their arguments on the claim that its is “unfair” to permit undocumented immigrant to take advantage of public services for which they have not paid.  There is little truth to this argument.

Employed undocumented immigrants do pay payroll taxes. At least one study has determined that, when taken as a whole, the financial contributions made by illegal immigrants exceeds the cost of services they use.

The problem is not that undocumented immigrants do not pay for the services they receive.  The problem is that there is a mismatch between who receives their tax dollars and who provides the services.  Specifically, while two thirds of the tax dollars paid by illegal immigrants goes to the federal government, the social services they receive—health care, education etc,--are paid for by the States.   Meanwhile, undocumented immigrants who are employed and who pay taxes to the federal government are not eligible for the benefits of, for example, unemployment insurance and Social Security benefits, that many of them paid for through their payroll taxes.
 
“Illegal” Immigrants Do NOT Take Jobs Away from Americans:  Many of those who favor immigration reform argue that undocumented immigrants take jobs that should be held by Americans. Those who oppose this argument contend that immigrants only take the low-skilled jobs that Americans are unwilling to take.  While each of these arguments can be supported by evidence within specific geographic areas and under specific economic conditions, there are no studies that wholly justify either position as a broadly applicable proposition.

Freedom to Immigrate is Freedom of Opportunity,
not a guarantee of a handout.

“Immigration policy” should not be used as a tool for solving social problems.  Immigration policy should reflect our history of welcoming diversity.  The other “problems” that are improperly blamed on immigration should be addressed through changes in the welfare system, the criminal justice system,  and other government programs—NOT BY STOPPING IMMIGRATION.

But there are other dimensions to the :guest worker” concept that are more troubling.  Specifically, there is nothing in the basic concept of a “guest worker” program that prevents business in other sectors, such as construction, from using temporary workers on a rotating basis to fill full-time jobs.  When used in this way, guest workers enable businesses to hold down wages and avoid the cost of employee benefits, such as health insurance and pension contributions, which employers can legally deny to their “temporary” employee.   I do not, however, support a program that answers this need while permitting employers to exploit such workers or subject them to unsafe working conditions.  Therefore, I would couple any guest worker program with mandates that such workers:

• Receive the prevailing wage.
• Be provided with access to reasonable accommodations,
• Be insured against injury, and
• Be provided with adequate health care.

National Identification Cards:  The use of tamper-proof identification cards for immigrants is a potentially effective means of enforcing immigration laws and policy.  However, it also sets a dangerous precedent as a step down the slippery slope toward national identification cards for all.  I believe that a national registry, readily accessible by employers and law enforcement, is a more appropriate means of enabling employers to confirm the status of potential employees.

Employer Sanctions:  Sanctions for the employment of illegal/undocumented aliens is a necessary part of any effort to enforce immigration laws.  There would be far fewer "illegal" immigrants if there were no jobs for them.  In fact, employers who hire "illegal" immigrants are engaging in conduct that is also criminal.  Therefore, I believe that  those who employ "illegal" immigrants should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 

There is, of course, an obvious problem with this because  employers, who fear that the documents presented by an applicant for employment may be false, may simply refuse to hire anyone who looks foreign.  Therefore, any system of sanctions needs to include a “good faith” exception for employers who have accessed the national registry (proposed above) can rely on documents presented by any potential worker.

To comment on this issue in the Issues Forum, click here

No Very

Do you have feedback? (Optional)

Enter Word Verification in box below