The Guest-Worker Program Solution

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.

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?

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.”

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.

Migrant Policy with Ed McCullough

Waking up at 5 a.m. and returning home at around 3 in the afternoon, I spent the better part Sunday, Sep. 28 on a humanitarian effort with retired UA Geology professor Ed McCullough. Accompanied by a fellow classmate, Osama Naser, we drove down to a heavy migrant travel area about five miles north of the U.S. - Mexico border. The group that McCullough is a part of, No More Deaths, tracks migrant trails so that they can map these routes in an effort to aide them in their long journey. Volunteers from No More Deaths provide Hispanic migrants with water, food and medical relief.

Osama and I will detail our experience in a story to appear on BorderBeat.net in the near future, but it is the political implication of the conversations that we had with McCullough that I wish to discuss in this blog entry.

On the hour-long dive from Tucson to various spots in the Coronado National Forest, McCullough explained the problems that migrants and his organization come into with the Border Patrol and other policies that the U.S. Government has set in place.

"The Border Patrol is constantly hurting our efforts, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly," said McCullough.

He explained that the Border Patrol's various attempts to curb illegal immigration have been set up by inhumane policies. "They (the Border Patrol) fly over groups of immigrants with their helicopters, causing them to scatter in every which direction; this really hurts their chances of survival," said McCullough.

Additionally, McCullough explained how the Border Patrol will often try to walk the same trails that the volunteers of No More Deaths do, sabotaging their work by slicing open water jugs and removing food.

Is this really an effective use of tax payer money? Almost everyone in this country agrees that illegal immigration is a problem, but agreeing on a solution has proven far more difficult. McCullough shot off some rather disturbing statistics. Over the past several years, where the Border Patrol has seen a large increase in their budget, there haven't been many positive results. Apprehensions are about the same as they have always been, while the number of illegal immigrants entering the country, as well as those who die in an attempt to do so, have both risen drastically. I wouldn't imagine that this was the intention of lawmakers when they decided to increase funding.

"Throwing money at a problem won't solve it," said McCullough. "You need to treat the cause of the problem, not the symptoms." Likening it to America's War on Drugs, McCullough feels that the U.S. government's attempts to solve a large issue by attacking it on a small scale and with misguided and inhumane tactics is bound to fail, and the numbers are in his favor. In fact, the Bush administration's immigration policies are so inhumane that the U.N. has found them in violation of international human right's laws, a violation that the administration rebukes and hides under the veil of national security.

My opinion on the issue is similar to that of McCullough's. We need to solve this problem by attacking it's cause rather than treating it's symptoms. Trying to stop immigrants from entering this country by making it easier for them to parish along their trip is disgusting. What's equally as disturbing is the claim that we can do whatever we want in the name of national security. How many times is that going to be used to justify illegal and unethical behavior?

Perhaps enforcing the already existing laws regarding hiring undocumented workers will serve as a better deterrent. According to McCullough, more than half of those caught trying to illegally enter our borders will keep trying until they are successful. If we give them no reason to keep trying, then we can save lives. Providing much less of an incentive for illegal immigrants to come here seeking work would prove far more effective and ethical in deterring their attempts to come here in the first place. That is an example of attempting to solve an issue through its cause.

Immigrant rights...?

While interning at the network level for CBS this summer I was exposed to a variety of newsworthy topics.  In one way or another they all seemed to be impacted by immigration, whether it was legal or not.  Hot-bed issues such as the economy are largely affected by immigration, and I recall one such story that touches on immigration as it effects the economy, as well as the moral fiber of our country.

One of my bosses and a senior producer of CBS' Evening Weekend News, John Mondello, approached me at the start of our week about a story idea of his.  There had recently been an immigration raid in Iowa, the largest in the history of the country.  Mondello asked me to do some research on the issue and to see how feasible it would be for him to fly from New York to Iowa to shoot a story.

Sure enough, later that week he was on his way.  Working entirely on his own, Mondello produced and shot the story, which can be read here    

At the heart of the issue is what to do with illegal immigrants once they are caught and the impact that such a raid has on the local economy.

As you can guess, opinions vary.  Many people hold that these people should have no rights, they should be immediately deported once they are caught working here illegally.  After all, by simply being in our country and taking up employment without going through the correct process they are breaking the law.

No issue is this black and white, however, and I find these particular shades of gray to be rather compelling.  As seen in the story about Postville, Iowa, many of these workers were lured into purchasing fake documentation by U.S. citizens.  What's more, where do our ethical and moral judgments come into play?  Should these families be forced to live in poverty and unable to work while they await a court date?

To me it seems like we need a more definitive solution.  If they are indeed breaking the law and are caught, perhaps they should be deported illegally.  On the other hand, if we are going to try to process them through our court system, then we need to take into account what these people and their families will endure throughout this process and make appropriate accomodations.

No matter which side of the issue you agree with, the way that our country is currently handling the problem is clearly faulted.  What do you think?  Which extreme should we implement when dealing with immigration, or do you think there is a reasonable middle ground between deportation and complete accomodation?  

   

Impressions of Rodney Glassman: An atypical politician

After interviewing Rodney Glassman, the representative of Tucson's second ward, I was left with several impressions, but one of them caught me rather off-guard. While Glassman’s success and dedication as a civil servant are certainly good things, you might be surprised at these achievements as you learn more about him.

In my interview with Glassman for an article to appear on BorderBeat.net later this week, we discussed much of what has led him to his current political career. Our conversations have run the gamut of biographical topics from his childhood and time as an undergraduate, to his multiple graduate degrees, his professional career, and his future aspirations. It is from what I learned about Glassman that I find myself so refreshingly surprised at his political accomplishments.

As someone who, in many ways, is not the typical politician, Glassman still shares a genuine concern for the good of his constituents. Above and beyond that, he seems to genuinely care about the well-being of anyone he can reach, not just those of Tucson’s second ward. This is evidenced by his involvement in various philanthropies, as well as one that he started and operates, The Glassman Foundation.

Glassman earned his undergraduate degree, as well as a PhD, an MBA and a J.D. from the UA. He explained to me in great detail his plans to be an attorney in the near future, yet he finds himself serving a job that he never intended to. Glassman admits that he has no further aspirations in politics; he and his wife agreed this would not be his career (not many politicians on a local level ever make the jump to the state level). But what’s wrong with that?

The southern California native who is now proud to call Tucson his home finds himself motivated by a different agenda, by a genuine desire to empower others, to better their lives and to serve their interests. As a community representative, Glassman has been helping out Tucson’s second ward with seemingly mundane issues such as fixing potholes and responding to numerous individual complaints (topics have ranged from not having enough recycling bins to neighborhood cleanliness). However, Glassman has also worked on larger legislative issues like guest-worker programs, solar power, and water conservation.

Perhaps this is what we need; more people in a field that weren’t looking to be there in the first place. This may be an oversimplification, but more politicians in the mold of Glassman wouldn’t hurt. Politicians who didn’t necessarily set out for a glamorous, me-first spot in the public eye, but rather those who are drawn to the job by a desire to do what the position really entails: serving the good of the community.