As mentioned a few weeks ago, I believe that the largest step in solving our nation's illegal immigration problem lies in creating an effective guest-worker program. Currently, our guest-worker program is on hold and has not made much progress since president Bush first proposed it in 2004. So, as promised, I will outline what I mean by "a carefully planned and properly executed guest-worker program."
Proper and thorough identification
Firstly, the U.S. must identify those who are entering this country as effectively as possible. Utilizing current technology, a guest-worker program should apply the same principles as the US-Visit program, where they do so biometrically. Biometric identification refers to using the latest techniques in fingerprinting, retina scanning and photographs, to get the most accurate and comprehensive account of who is here.
Incentive for existing workers and employers
Any new program that is created needs to provide an incentive for the already millions of undocumented workers that are in this country to join. This means that our new laws should not involve rigid time limits for participation, that we start to enforce our laws, or both. For example, if there is a limit of three years that one can be a guest-worker, then where is the incentive for them to join? Similarly, employers need to feel the pressure of following our laws, this will motivate them to regulate themselves on who they hire.
Guest-worker programs are not amnesty or citizenship
One of the most important things to maintain throughout any such program is that it is NOT amnesty or citizenship. As such, individuals in the guest-worker program will not receive the social program benefits that citizens do. As previously stated, any such new program should be modeled, in part, on the US-Visit program. In this instance, immigrant workers should be treated just like those visiting this country, subject to our laws but not entitled to our social programs.
These three conditions are what I consider to be the pillars of a successful guest-worker program. We need to encourage immigrants and their employers to have them registered with our program, we need to have them properly accounted for and we need to make sure that they aren't draining our resources or obtaining the privilege of a legitimate U.S. citizen. The path to citizenship is different and can be pursued separately.
Many opponents of similar programs and part of the reason why it is currently stalled is that they fear it will "open the gates" in a manner of speaking. The reality is, however, that the gates are already open, and its lack of effective regulation makes them open in dangerous and inhumane ways. The proper use of this program would shore up such issues.
Note: The outlined ideas, as well as many others are touched upon by the heritage foundation. I do not personally subscribe to all of their ideas or interpretations of the ideas that we share (as we share them broadly). However, here is an elaboration on the topic and at times a slightly different take.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
James Gregg on Covering the Border
Last week I promised to post a follow-up to immigrant policy in which I would outline specifics to what I thought was a plausible solution. I will get to that soon, but between then and now I ran into a story that I couldn't help but post for this week.
Last Wednesday I sat down with photojournalist James Gregg. Over lunch, I learned much about his career, a story that is deeply rooted in the immigrant world. His overall take on border issues and immigrant policy wasn't anything specific, but it touched on several broad ideas that I think are important for everyone to keep in mind.
First, understand that Gregg could be considered as an "expert" on the immigrant world, as he has a degree from the University of Kansas in Spanish and Latin American studies. More importantly, his career has led him to cover many stories on the border. My favorite example of his border related work can be seen here. It is a slideshow titled "Sealing our Border" and provides a visually stunning account of a trip that he took with the the Arizona Daily Star.
In our conversation I pressed Gregg for his personal views on our country's immigration problem. Even offering for it to be off the record, I still found it difficult to get a specific answer out of him. At first I thought that he was dodging the question and that very well may have been the case. Upon further reflection, however, I realized that the answer he did give me was not just hot-air meant to divert my attention away from his unspecific answer.
What he provided me with was not a liberal or conservative point-of-view, rather it was an expression of an ideology that identifies the inadequacies of both positions.
"It's never as simple as either side would make it seem, that is one thing that I have learned from being down there firsthand," Gregg said.
"The answer is not to build a wall, even if that did have the possibility of being effective. Opening up our borders entirely is just as misplaced a solution, if not more so," Gregg said.
Sure this seems obvious, the answer lies somewhere between the two, somewhere that has proven extremely difficult to pinpoint and agree upon.
"What is most important to recognize is that we need to drop all of our preconceived notions of what is the proper solution and what isn't," Gregg added. "When you get down there you realize that many of us probably have no clue what we are talking about and that what we are saying doesn't come from personal experience, but is usually what we heard from someone else."
And so it is the simple, seemingly obvious words of Gregg that I want everyone to remember when they try to identify with immigration issues. Try to do the impossible and examine them with a totally clean slate. Forget what you think you know and concede the fact that there is little most of us can really speak to of our actual border experience that has shaped our opinion on the issue.
If someone like Gregg who has a world of experience beyond ours can do so, why can't we?
Last Wednesday I sat down with photojournalist James Gregg. Over lunch, I learned much about his career, a story that is deeply rooted in the immigrant world. His overall take on border issues and immigrant policy wasn't anything specific, but it touched on several broad ideas that I think are important for everyone to keep in mind.
First, understand that Gregg could be considered as an "expert" on the immigrant world, as he has a degree from the University of Kansas in Spanish and Latin American studies. More importantly, his career has led him to cover many stories on the border. My favorite example of his border related work can be seen here. It is a slideshow titled "Sealing our Border" and provides a visually stunning account of a trip that he took with the the Arizona Daily Star.
In our conversation I pressed Gregg for his personal views on our country's immigration problem. Even offering for it to be off the record, I still found it difficult to get a specific answer out of him. At first I thought that he was dodging the question and that very well may have been the case. Upon further reflection, however, I realized that the answer he did give me was not just hot-air meant to divert my attention away from his unspecific answer.
What he provided me with was not a liberal or conservative point-of-view, rather it was an expression of an ideology that identifies the inadequacies of both positions.
"It's never as simple as either side would make it seem, that is one thing that I have learned from being down there firsthand," Gregg said.
"The answer is not to build a wall, even if that did have the possibility of being effective. Opening up our borders entirely is just as misplaced a solution, if not more so," Gregg said.
Sure this seems obvious, the answer lies somewhere between the two, somewhere that has proven extremely difficult to pinpoint and agree upon.
"What is most important to recognize is that we need to drop all of our preconceived notions of what is the proper solution and what isn't," Gregg added. "When you get down there you realize that many of us probably have no clue what we are talking about and that what we are saying doesn't come from personal experience, but is usually what we heard from someone else."
And so it is the simple, seemingly obvious words of Gregg that I want everyone to remember when they try to identify with immigration issues. Try to do the impossible and examine them with a totally clean slate. Forget what you think you know and concede the fact that there is little most of us can really speak to of our actual border experience that has shaped our opinion on the issue.
If someone like Gregg who has a world of experience beyond ours can do so, why can't we?
Monday, October 13, 2008
Immigration Policy: ID the Issue and attack the cause
In last week’s post I discussed the ineffectiveness of the border fence; but rather than simply complaining about what isn’t working (anyone can do that), I promised to identify some potential solutions. At the heart of the issue, as Ed McCullough stated, is to “treat the causes, not the symptoms.”
It is widely accepted that the U.S. Government’s immigration policies have been a failure; trying to physically keep individuals from entering this country through building fences and encouraging them to die in the desert is both inhumane and ineffective. The cause of the problem is what we need to work with, but there is no singular cause.
A poor Mexican working environment that isn’t nearly as lucrative as that of the United States’ is probably the largest motivating factor behind their residents’ desire to work elsewhere. As that seems to be largely out of our control, perhaps we should accept the fact that Americans will have many people trying to enter their borders. So where do we go from there?
In a very broad context, we should accept foreign workers. Statistics show that immigrant labor is an important part of our economy. In fact, the 2005 Economic Report of the President devotes an entire chapter to immigration and states that “A comprehensive accounting of the benefits and costs of immigration shows the benefits of immigration exceed the costs.”
It is because of this that I favor a carefully planned and properly executed guest-worker program. If we allow immigrant workers to contribute to their families as well as our country legally, we will find the benefits to be incredible. Studies by the Heritage Foundation support this idea, showing three important things. One, that “a 10 percent share increase of immigrant labor results in roughly a 1 percent reduction in native wages—a very minor effect;” two, that “most immigrant families have a positive net fiscal impact on the U.S., adding $88,000 more in tax revenues than they consume in services.” Finally, it was found that “Social Security payroll taxes paid by improperly identified (undocumented) workers have led to a $463 billion funding surplus.”
In next week’s post I will outline the specifics of what I mean when I referred to “a carefully planned and properly executed guest-worker program.”
It is widely accepted that the U.S. Government’s immigration policies have been a failure; trying to physically keep individuals from entering this country through building fences and encouraging them to die in the desert is both inhumane and ineffective. The cause of the problem is what we need to work with, but there is no singular cause.
A poor Mexican working environment that isn’t nearly as lucrative as that of the United States’ is probably the largest motivating factor behind their residents’ desire to work elsewhere. As that seems to be largely out of our control, perhaps we should accept the fact that Americans will have many people trying to enter their borders. So where do we go from there?
In a very broad context, we should accept foreign workers. Statistics show that immigrant labor is an important part of our economy. In fact, the 2005 Economic Report of the President devotes an entire chapter to immigration and states that “A comprehensive accounting of the benefits and costs of immigration shows the benefits of immigration exceed the costs.”
It is because of this that I favor a carefully planned and properly executed guest-worker program. If we allow immigrant workers to contribute to their families as well as our country legally, we will find the benefits to be incredible. Studies by the Heritage Foundation support this idea, showing three important things. One, that “a 10 percent share increase of immigrant labor results in roughly a 1 percent reduction in native wages—a very minor effect;” two, that “most immigrant families have a positive net fiscal impact on the U.S., adding $88,000 more in tax revenues than they consume in services.” Finally, it was found that “Social Security payroll taxes paid by improperly identified (undocumented) workers have led to a $463 billion funding surplus.”
In next week’s post I will outline the specifics of what I mean when I referred to “a carefully planned and properly executed guest-worker program.”
Monday, October 6, 2008
The Border Fence: Costly and Ineffective
Well before the idea of a border fence was ever voted on in Congress, many people questioned its potential effectiveness. They wondered about such a project's feasibility: How much would it cost? Would it cover the whole border? What kind of fence would it be? Ultimately, and most importantly, people wondered if such a plan could realistically work.
Several years later we are left with a project that is incomplete and underfunded, a project that would probably be ineffective even if it were receiving the support it needs.
Officer Stephen Anderson of the United States Army details the work that he has done for the border fence and optimistically explains what the fence can accomplish. Despite his optimism, the limitations of the fence's effectiveness are clear.
A Reuters' report elaborates on these limitations and explains how illegal immigrants have adapted to the U.S. government's half-hearted attempt to secure its borders.
So how did we get into this mess in the first place?
Politicking.
A compilation of reports explains that politicians, under intense scrutiny from their constituents, proposed yet another idea to treat the symptoms of the issue rather than the cause (an idea which I touched upon in my last post).
Perhaps realizing that the project wasn't realistic, or feeling less heat as immigration took a backseat to other issues such as foreign affairs or the economy, these politicians began to backtrack as the aforementioned compilation thoroughly explains.
Given what we now know about this issue, it is time to cut our losses. Lawmakers need to stop the construction of this fence (which many of them seem to already be doing in a covert way) and attack the root problems behind illegal immigration. In my next post I will detail several solutions to illegal immigration, plans of action that I beleive can be more effective and less costly than building fences and encouraging death in the desert.
Several years later we are left with a project that is incomplete and underfunded, a project that would probably be ineffective even if it were receiving the support it needs.
Officer Stephen Anderson of the United States Army details the work that he has done for the border fence and optimistically explains what the fence can accomplish. Despite his optimism, the limitations of the fence's effectiveness are clear.
A Reuters' report elaborates on these limitations and explains how illegal immigrants have adapted to the U.S. government's half-hearted attempt to secure its borders.
So how did we get into this mess in the first place?
Politicking.
A compilation of reports explains that politicians, under intense scrutiny from their constituents, proposed yet another idea to treat the symptoms of the issue rather than the cause (an idea which I touched upon in my last post).
Perhaps realizing that the project wasn't realistic, or feeling less heat as immigration took a backseat to other issues such as foreign affairs or the economy, these politicians began to backtrack as the aforementioned compilation thoroughly explains.
Given what we now know about this issue, it is time to cut our losses. Lawmakers need to stop the construction of this fence (which many of them seem to already be doing in a covert way) and attack the root problems behind illegal immigration. In my next post I will detail several solutions to illegal immigration, plans of action that I beleive can be more effective and less costly than building fences and encouraging death in the desert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
