|
 |
NILC Reflections on President Bush’s Immigration Reform Proposal: A compelling vision but a seriously flawed proposal
--President Bush, January 7, 2004 The National Immigration Law Center is encouraged by the fact that the President has decided to address the need for comprehensive immigration reform, and we welcome the sweep of his rhetoric. Sadly, the proposal he has outlined is fatally flawed because it fails to live up to the vision he expressed so eloquently. The question, now, is whether his administration will work with Congress to pass legislation that comports with that broad vision. It is nearly impossible to conceive of comprehensive immigration legislation being enacted during this election year. Therefore, in the short run, the best indicator of the President’s intentions is whether he presses for immediate passage of focused proposals such as the DREAM Act that would make positive changes consistent with his expressed values. We believe that the President’s speech makes it more likely that these interim initiatives will be enacted this year. (1) A compelling vision We strongly agree with the President and most Americans that the status quo is unacceptable, major reform is needed, and any such reform must provide legal status for those already here and working in some of America’s most arduous and lowest paid jobs as janitors, meatpackers, garment workers, farmworkers, etc. The President’s renewed attention to the issue confirms our belief that there is an unstoppable momentum towards comprehensive immigration reform and legalization of currently undocumented workers. This momentum is based on our economic needs, the reality of a shrinking world and increased trade, demographic change, increased civic participation by immigrants, and the inherently undemocratic and unstable situation set up by our current unworkable system. The only question is the pace and nature of the reforms to come. The inclusive rhetoric employed by the President to describe the struggles of undocumented immigrants is important and helpful. For example, we very much appreciate and agree with the following sentiments about undocumented immigrants from his statement: “Their search for a better life is one of the most basic desires of human beings. Many undocumented workers have walked mile after mile, through the heat of the day and the cold of the night. Some have risked their lives in dangerous desert border crossings, or entrusted their lives to the brutal rings of heartless human smugglers. Workers who seek only to earn a living end up in the shadows of American life -- fearful, often abused and exploited. When they are victimized by crime, they are afraid to call the police, or seek recourse in the legal system. They are cut off from their families far away, fearing if they leave our country to visit relatives back home, they might never be able to return to their jobs. “The situation I described is wrong. It is not the American way. Out of common sense and fairness, our laws should allow willing workers to enter our country and fill jobs that Americans have are not filling. (Applause.) We must make our immigration laws more rational, and more humane. And I believe we can do so without jeopardizing the livelihoods of American citizens.” The complete statement is available on line at http://lwiwcall.c.tep1.com/maabPOjaa3qRgbaOmKeb/ (2) A fatally flawed proposal The basic elements of the proposal
as we understand it are as follows: i. All undocumented immigrants in the U.S. would be eligible for a temporary nonimmigrant visa if currently employed and sponsored by their current employers; ii. Also eligible would be persons who are currently abroad who have job offers in the U.S. from employers if the employers have tried and failed to fill the position with domestic workers; iii. The guestworkers would be able to stay in he U.S. legally for up to 3 years if they remain employed with the original or another employer; iv. During the 3 year period, the guestworkers would be able to travel freely between the U.S. and their homelands; v. Spouses and minor children of the guestworkers would be able to live in the U.S. with the worker, but would not be authorized to work legally unless they participate in the guestworker program in their own right. vi. The 3-year period would be renewable for an unspecified number of terms, but not indefinitely. vii. Guestworkers would be eligible to apply for permanent status, but only if they qualify under the current system (i.e., there are no provisions to permit guestworkers to obtain legal status once the temporary period runs out). b. Permanent legal immigration numbers would be increased, although the degree and nature of the increase is unspecified c. There would be increased workplace and other enforcement of immigration laws, including use of biometrics, without specifics other than that the President is not calling for institution of a national ID. d. Employees would be required to report any guestworkers they hire under the program, as well as those who leave their employment, so that the government can monitor workers and deport those who lose employment. e. Temporary workers would be given the option to put earnings into “preferred tax” accounts that can be drawn down in countries of origin. f. The President will negotiate social security “totalization agreements” with new countries (these agreements, currently in place for about 20 countries, permit pooling of social security earnings from both countries so that workers are not penalized for time spent abroad… The U.S. and Mexico are currently in the process of negotiating such an agreement). This proposal lacks the details necessary
for a fully comprehensive analysis, but these are a few of its flaws: c. Problems with guestworker programs: Guestworker programs such as the Bracero program have a terrible history of abuse and misuse and the proposal does not provide sufficient protections to address the inherent problems. For example, workers under the proposal could face deportation if they are laid off or fired, and those who assert their rights would be at the mercy of employers who threaten to do so or who simply fail to cooperate in the guestworker paperwork requirements. Complaining workers could also be blacklisted within their industry, making it difficult for workers to carry their status with them to another employer. The Administration’s proposal would extend beyond agriculture to all other sectors, magnifying these problems. d. Inadequate worker protections: The proposal’s call for increased workplace immigration enforcement is likely to be counterproductive to the President’s goal of encouraging workers to come forward to report instances of labor abuse. Employer sanctions, raids, and similar efforts have proven ineffective for immigration control. Rather, such measures make workers more vulnerable to employers and therefore more exploitable. Although the President’s proposal would provide the guestworkers with the same rights as others, they would often be too vulnerable to assert these rights. e. Not comprehensive: If it is to win acceptance and succeed in the long term, a comprehensive immigration proposal must make provision for the integration of immigrants into our social and economic fabric, including language acquisition, health care and other basic needs, economic development, and impact assistance for states and local governments. Similarly, today’s problems are likely to recur unless reforms are made to permit immigrants to re-unite with close family members without waiting an intolerable amount of time. (3) Opportunities for Meaningful
Reform this Year o The DREAM Act (or Student Adjustment Act in the House), responds to a tragedy faced by young adults who were brought to the United States years ago as undocumented children, and who have grown up here, but who are currently precluded from applying for the legal status they need to finish school, work and fully contribute to our nation. o The AgJOBS bill is designed to modernize our nation’s failed agriculture immigration policies so that the vast majority of tomorrow’s farmworkers can be legal workers. With the President’s support, these bills can pass quickly. Other important pending legislation could pass this year with the President’s support, including repeal of the U.S. Supreme court decision in Hoffman Plastic that made it easier for employers to exploit undocumented workers (and therefore also easier to exploit all workers) and efforts to eliminate bars that prevent immigrants from obtaining basic health care and other public benefits supported by their own taxes. The best test of whether the President
is merely playing politics with immigrants or sincerely wants to
make a difference will be whether he works for passage of these
concrete improvements.
|
|
|