“Looks like a duck, walks like a duck. . .”
De facto amnesty?
By Marilyn M. Brannan, Assoc. Editor
Unravelling The New World Order

It's hard to tell from the headlines and the media coverage exactly what the President is trying to accomplish with his newly announced immigration policy. Some are angrily describing Bush's proposal as “amnesty for illegal immigrants.” One editor ( Global Intelligence Report, Jan. 8, 2004 ) called it a “near-naked bid to improve his re-election chances.” Others, who have a more favorable view of the proposal, have called it a “guest worker program.”

Basically, the plan would:

-- confer legal status on millions of illegal aliens who work in this country (i.e., “forgive” the felony these people have committed in being here);

-- grant guest-worker status for three to six years, provided the worker has an employer who will vouch for his job;

-- allow a worker to apply for a green card or permanent residency;

-- confer the benefits of Social Security and the right to travel from, and return to, the U.S. ; and

-- allow a worker to bring family members into the U.S.

Among those who support the “cleverly calculated political move” theory is John Leo, a columnist and contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report . He points out that there is something for everyone: Big business is assured an unending supply of cheap labor; unions get the bonanza of millions more workers to organize; Bush's credentials as a “compassionate conservative” are more plausible; and Republican strategy to promote more Latino candidates for office will look much less cynical (“More Immigration Folly,” Jan. 12, 2004).

President Bush may have made a deal the elites cannot oppose. “On hot-button social issues,” Leo says, “Bush has a history of ignoring majorities and abandoning his base, and of backing the position of small but powerful and largely Democratic elites.”

Although sixty percent of Americans believe current immigration levels are a threat to the vital interests of the United States , only 14 percent of government officials, business leaders, and journalists think so, according to Stephen Dinan, writing for The Washington Times . The Bush administration may believe there is more to be gained politically by adopting the elitist position that illegals must be “normalized.” By doing so, the administration could force the Democrats to address policy, instead of playing politics. Otherwise, they risk public criticism from pro-immigrant groups, which includes much of the Hispanic community (which now makes up nearly 10 percent of the American electorate).

The business community supports immigration reform, and pro-immigrant groups like the National Immigration Forum have made positive statements about Bush's proposal. The largely positive “elite consensus,” coupled with the fact that the plan is only vaguely defined at this point, makes it probable that the negative effects of guest-worker normalization will not be widely addressed in the press. So, the President gets credit up-front for reaching out to protect a vulnerable group, while the details and costs will not appear until much later.

An article in the Weekly Standard (“Barely Illegal,” Jan. 19, 2004) makes the interesting point that the main anti-immigration groups that feed information to Capitol Hill are neither conservative, Republican, nor genuinely interested in stopping illegal immigration. The politically potent anti-immigration groups are on the left, and include unions and the radical wing of the environmental movement (which favors sharp reductions in the population levels of the U.S. to as low as 150 million). Since newcomers increase the U.S. population or maintain it at its current numbers, this latter group does not want anyone coming here legally either, no matter how beneficial that would be in reducing illegal entry.

The Negative Side

Although the Bush administration states emphatically that the plan is not an amnesty for those who are here illegally, one can hardly ignore the fact that eight to twelve million illegals will potentially be “forgiven,” and that the whole plan seems to constitute an invitation to those who haven't yet “made the trip.” Many worry it will invite a human tidal wave to wash across our borders, and if so, the U.S. government will never gain control of our nation's borders. In 2001 the Mexican Ministry of the Interior reported that even with falling birthrates and increased economic development, mass immigration from Mexico to the U.S. will continue for another three decades.

Thirty-five members of Congress responded with alarm to Tom Ridge 's recent comment that we, as a country, must “come to grips” with the 8 to 12 million illegal aliens in this country. They argued against rewarding people who violate our immigration laws and they expressed serious concerns about probable effects of the program, should it be adopted: What about Mahmud Abouhalima, who was granted amnesty in 1986 and later used his legal status to join the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center in 1993? What will prevent Islamic terror networks, many of them operating in Latin American countries, from infiltrating this proposed “guest-worker” program?

  Critics say another negative byproduct will be lower wages for unskilled workers, both immigrants and natives. American-born blacks, they say, will pay a high price for the lowering of wages that will result from the normalization of illegal immigrants.

On the Positive Side

The positive aspects, according to those who support the proposal, include the fact that immigrant workers would no longer have to evade Border Patrol agents or die trying. Those working illegally in this country could pay a fine and obtain a temporary visa, good for three years but renewable.

Underlying part of the plan is President Bush's belief that our current limits on the number of legal immigrant workers are too low. He has pledged to work with Congress to increase the annual number of green cards. This latter aspect is significant because current law is highly restrictive in offering opportunities for U.S. employers to hire immigrants to work legally in agriculture and other non-professional fields. The procedure for obtaining visas for agricultural work is so cumbersome that fewer than 30,000 such visas are issued annually, while several hundred thousand immigrants work in the fields illegally. Thus, proponents say, the absence of avenues to work legally in the U.S. is a primary reason for the current levels of illegal immigration.

Some analysts are calling the President's proposal a “market-based solution” to some of the problems with immigration. These people have concluded that the factor most likely to raise inflation, jack up interest rates and slow economic expansion would be a sustained rise in the cost of labor. Bush's immigration proposal would potentially allow some 10-12 million foreign workers to hold jobs for at least three years, which could bring about a three-year period in which employers do not have to substantially increase pay for a large sector of unskilled labor. According to that reasoning, this would put a lid on labor inflation for a time as U.S. economic growth (hopefully) continues to strengthen. And, as new migrants continue crossing U.S. borders (a virtual certainty), wages for all migrants—both legal and illegal—would remain roughly where they are now.

Proponents believe that if enforcement can be combined with new temporary worker visas, the plan could potentially reduce illegal entry into the U.S. , freeing Border Patrol agents to focus on more serious concerns such as terrorism.

  One writer commented that a person needs a scorecard to follow the politics of immigration. We would certainly agree. However, we tend to come down on the side of William F. Buckley, who says, “The Bush immigration plan is so complicated, so heavily dependent on enforcement agencies we don't have and don't really want, that it's impossible to say what lies immediately ahead for the proposed bill. Probably it won't be passed by this Congress.”