Immigration

Seen in the New York Times:

The battle over voting rights will expand this week as lawmakers in Missouri are expected to support a proposed constitutional amendment to enable election officials to require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote.[...]

The Missouri secretary of state, Robin Carnahan, a Democrat who opposes the measure, estimated that it could disenfranchise up to 240,000 registered voters who would be unable to prove their citizenship.

Now, I’ve been uncomfortable with the notion of requiring Voter ID.  I can understand the concerns by proponents of the concept, but the fact of the matter is that even in this day and age, some people lack photo ID.  Despite the difficulty in participating in society without identification, it’s not a requirement.

I realize that the Supreme Court supported Voter ID laws in part due to plaintiffs’ failure to produce anyone who really was impacted by the law.   However, I can’t help but think that the folks most likely to be impacted are also the folks least likely to complain about being impacted.

The expansion of such a measure only seems to aggravate the problem to me.   A little over a year ago, my wife and I had the experience of trying to secure new “proof of citizenship” for her, in advance of a cruise, since she had forgotten where her passport and birth certificate were.  The hoops we had to go through to get her a new copy of her birth certificate weren’t insurmountable…but that was only because we had net access at home, the means to easily copy some of the supporting documentation required, and spare cash to pay for the processing fees.

I can easily imagine how nearly-impossible the process might seem to a disadvantaged individual.

I’m reminded of something in the Constitution, the 24th Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

I know “ID” and “proof of citizenship” don’t translate to “poll tax or any other tax”… but for folks who don’t have the requisite documentation, it would seem that they will be required to shell out a few bucks to obtain that documentation…and that sounds like “other tax” to me.

This only fuels my suspicion that it’s time to move on from the increasingly-illusory belief that an ID is not mandatory in American society.   If you’re going to require identification to exercise one of the fundamental rights of citizenship, you might as well mandate that everyone possess identification documents, and help those without such papers to obtain them.

If we are going to slide down that slope, however, could we at least get some privacy protections to cushion our assimilation?

I’m in the midst of a rather busy/chaotic time at the day job, and so I’ve let my reading pile accumulate to frightening proportions.

One article I should have commented on this past week was a New York Times blurb on testimony Bill Gates gave Congress:

More investment in math and science education and a more liberal policy toward skilled foreign workers are crucial if America is to avoid losing its competitive edge, a founder of Microsoft, Bill Gates, told Congress on Wednesday.

The shortage of scientists and engineers is so acute, Mr. Gates said, that “we must do both: reform our education system and our immigration policies.”

“If we don’t, American companies simply will not have the talent to innovate and compete,” he said in testimony to the House Committee on Science and Technology.

I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment.

An environment where our economy is dragging is hardly the time to continue disincenting the development of our own intellectual and future technological skill pool.

Over the weekend, the Washington Post ran a story featuring the views of several folks down on the U.S. - Mexico border who are taking exception to seeing their properties being taken for the border fence being built well inland from the border.

Within the story, there were two reality-checks I think are worth highlighting.

The first:

Their anger at being asked to sacrifice all that, Fred said, is that much greater because they believe the fence would deter neither terrorists nor illegal immigrants—who many here are convinced would simply tunnel under the fence, climb over it with ladders, or avoid it by heading for the sections of the border, including large stretches of South Texas, that will remain un-fenced.

“People in the rest of the U.S. just don’t understand the reality of what’s going on here,” he said. [...]

And the second:

Fred Garcia thinks it would be enough to maintain the beefed-up Border Patrol presence that he has noticed in the region since Sept. 11, 2001.

“Every time I come out here, they’re on me in minutes,” he said.

As if on a cue, a white sport-utility vehicle with the Border Patrol’s distinctive green stripe loomed in the rearview mirror, lights flashing. In the distance, three more SUVs converged, and several men stepped out, wearing uniforms of the National Guard, which has supplemented the Border Patrol over the past year.

One of the hot topics this election cycle is immigration.  In this regard, the otherwise unique 2008 race is much like a recurring political debate throughout American history — the call for cheap immigrant labor versus xenophobia.

Some of my thoughts on immigration are very conventional.  It’s silly to have laws regulating who can or cannot enter the country if you aren’t going to enforce them.  I am very OK with the idea of tightening border security, including probably erecting a meaningful fence or wall, and I am very OK with requiring employers to confirm immigrant/citizenship status (allowing, of course,  for some reasonable mechanism to deal with glitches that will inevitably occur).

However, I do run counter to conventional wisdom on immigration in a couple of regards.

First, we apparently have 12ish million undocumented immigrants in this country.  Any resolution to the immigration issue needs to address the irregular status of these folks.  Various ideas I’ve seen floated involve calls for “no amnesty”, hefty fines, deportation, and/or being sent to “the back of the line”.

I’m not sure that I’ve yet heard anyone seriously propose a realistic idea.

Mass deportation is unrealistic.  Can you imagine the expense and controls that would have to be implemented to deport 12 million people?  It’s not going to happen!

Similarly, proposals that require paying fines to regularize status or leaving the country and “going to the back of the line” also seem doomed for noncompliance.

However, I also agree that outright “amnesty” is undesirable as well, as it only sows disregard for laws that the nation is attempting to begin to give meaning to.  I’ve seen discussion in the past suggesting that past immigration amnesties have had the side-effect of fueling illegal immigration as folks attempt to make it “under the wire”…or queue up for the next grant of amnesty.

I suspect that a realistic solution would have to involve asking current undocumented immigrants to apply for regularization (with risk of being turned down), effectively joining the same queue as prospective immigrants.  Yes, it wouldn’t be “fair” to let folks who have flaunted our laws to get off without penalty…but let’s face it folks, life isn’t fair.

That touches upon one other issue I have with our current immigration policy.  We seem to have some ridiculously low quotas for immigration.   Slots for H1B visas seem to be filled virtually as quickly as they’re opened.  And someone has to be employing many of the 12 million undocumented immigrants, suggesting that there’s a demand for labor that’s unmet by more regular means.

Any tightening of border security and crackdown on immigration law needs to be accompanied by a rationalization of what that immigration law is.  If we have jobs that we cannot fill from our domestic workforce, let’s let folks come in from outside to help fill them.  If we’re concerned about such folks from proving to be a drain on social services…well, we have enough bright minds in this country to work through or around that possibility.  And, I wouldn’t even object to bringing relief to unemployed folks into the mix.  If we have employers looking for immigrant labor, perhaps they could be seamlessly be connected with folks who are already here legally and might be looking for work, in addition to looking for talent internationally.

Wouldn’t it be nice if politicians and bureaucrats could take a bit to work through a realistic solution, rather than engaging in all the election year, immigrant-bashing grandstanding that’s going on?

The Wall Street Journal is running an article (subscriber link) which touches upon one of the more interesting points to ponder, while discussing Arizona’s attempts to crack down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants—the role that cheap labor might play in the economy.

Under the law, people will be encouraged to contact a county sheriff’s or county attorney’s office to report businesses they suspect of employing an illegal immigrant. After the sheriff investigates, the county attorney can then seek to suspend and ultimately revoke the business license of an employer who knowingly hires an illegal immigrant. The measure would also require all Arizona businesses to use E-Verify, a federal online database, to confirm that new hires have valid Social Security numbers and are eligible for employment.[...]

About 500,000 undocumented immigrants live in Arizona, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, and independent estimates suggest about 350,000 of them are working. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, account for 14% of the work force. The state enjoys one of the fastest-growing economies in the nation, and its unemployment rate last year was just 3.3%.

A University of Arizona study released earlier this year concluded that economic output would drop 8.2% annually if noncitizen foreign-born workers were removed from the labor force. Researchers estimate about two-thirds of the workers in that category are in the state illegally.[...]

Sheridan Bailey, president of steel-beam manufacturer Ironco, said he has fired several Hispanic employees in anticipation of the sanctions law. “This law has the potential of sinking a business,” he said. Mr. Bailey, who has formed a business group to address the issue, said Congress’s inaction has allowed “policies to be generated on the fringe.”

Ironco recently sealed a deal to outsource some production to a Mexican company. “The labor market is tight, and I face fines if I don’t meet my commitments,” said Mr. Bailey.

On a couple of her good days, my wife and I have had a little fun debating immigration. She usually argues that cracking down on illegal immigration, without adjusting legal immigration quotas, will simply mean that employers will have to start paying wages for what the jobs are actually worth, to attract legal employees. My usual comeback is to point out the downstream impacts—increased costs, the drag to the economy…and the outsourcing of work to cheaper locales.

If we’re going to be paying a certain group of folks for making our cheap merchandise, shouldn’t we be doing so in a way that encourages them to pump at least some of that money back into our economy?

I think the idea of Arizona as an “experiment” is interesting. I’m of the opinion that blocking illegal immigration without providing an alternate, appropriately documented means for folks to take jobs in the country could trigger a cascade effect with, at a minimum, some rather unfortunate short-and-midterm chaos until a new equilibrium is found.

Unfortunately, trying to put metrics around a belief such as mine is difficult, due to the under-the-table nature of employing undocumented workers, and some of the fuzziness around attempting to measure economic impacts. But perhaps the, um, “Arizona experiment” will test whether my concerns are well-founded, or if I’m simply being paranoid again.

Periodically, I run into a discussion along the lines of “wouldn’t it be nice if we could have an open border with Canada”, due to our cordial relations and the hassle of border-crossing these days. Homeland Security concerns aggravated by differences on immigration policy are the reasons usually given for why Canadian border liberalization seems unlikely to occur.

For example, consider this post from ABC News’ Blotter:

According to Canadian news accounts, Justice Michael Phelan’s ruling struck down an agreement that once barred thousands of refugees seeking asylum in Canada. The judge said the United States does not protect refugees fleeing political persecution and torture, which international conventions require.

Instead, it adheres to rigid policies which may result in mistreatment, including forcing victims of abuse to return to the countries in which they were mistreated, he said.

As a result, the United States can no longer be considered a safe place for refugees, Phelan ruled. His ruling nullifies an existing U.S.-Canada agreement saying that if a refugee is turned away from one country, he or she cannot seek refuge in the other. The agreement was intended to reduce so-called “asylum shopping,” in which immigrants attempt to obtain refugee status from multiple countries.

While American border paranoia is understandable, it’s a sorry day when other countries openly note that the U.S. may no longer be a good destination for refugees looking for safety and opportunity.

Wednesday night’s GOP YouTube debate began with a heated exchange between Giuliani and Romney over who was the bigger hypocrite. Both claim tough stances on the immigration issue, but Giuliani gets to dance around the question of whether New York City was/is a “sanctuary city”, and Romney has the dubious distinction of a contractor employing undocumented laborers while doing work at the Massachusetts Governor’s Mansion during Romney’s tenure.

After this post at Alternet, I wonder if Tancredo, whose immigration stance is probably the toughest (most xenophobic?) of the GOP field, might also have the best claim on the “hypocrite” label:

When Republican Representative Tom Tancredo isn’t railing against the “scourge” of illegal immigration on the presidential campaign trail, he relaxes in the 1053 square foot basement recreation room of his Littleton, Colorado McMansion. There, he and his family can rack up a game of billiards on their tournament size pool table, play pinball, or enjoy their favorite movies in the terraced seating area of a home theater system.[...]

When Tancredo hired a construction crew to transform his drab basement into a high-tech pleasure den in October 2001, however, he did not express concern that only two of its members spoke English. Nor did he bother to check the workers’ documentation to see if they were legal residents of the United States. Had Tancredo done so, he would have learned that most of the crew consisted of undocumented immigrants, or “criminal aliens” as he likes to call them. Instead, Tancredo paid the crew $60,000 for its labor and waited innocently for the completion of his elaborate entertainment complex.

During the renovation process, two illegal workers hired by Tancredo were alerted to his reputation for immigrant bashing. They went straight to the Denver Post to complain. Tancredo “doesn’t want us here, but he’ll take advantage of our sweat and our labor,” one of the workers complained to the Post on September 19, 2002. “It’s just not right.”

So, is there anyone who is still unclear on the concept of why so many Americans distrust politicians?

After having been soundly roasted over prayer services in Georgia, I’ll foolishly dare to broach another subject where I seem to have a knack for fueling a few flames: immigration.

In the past couple of days, a couple of news items caught my eye, as much for timing as for subject matter.

First, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, it seems that the Board of Supervisors are looking at adopting New Haven style municipal ID’s:

The Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to issue municipal identification cards to city residents - regardless of whether they are in the country legally[...]

The legislation would require companies holding city contracts to accept the municipal card as a legitimate form of identification - except in cases where other state and federal laws require other forms of proof of age, name and residence.[...]

Ammiano said banking institutions in San Francisco have signaled their willingness to accept the municipal ID card for the purpose of setting up accounts. He noted that people without bank accounts are frequently more vulnerable to theft and robbery.

At around the same time, word comes from New York that Governor Spitzer is backing off his plan to permit a not-valid-for-federal-ID class of drivers licenses which wouldn’t require disclosure of immigration status. From the New York Times:

Gov. Eliot Spitzer is abandoning his plan to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, saying that opposition is just too overwhelming to move forward with such a policy.[...]

“I am not willing to fight to the bitter end on something that will not ultimately be implemented,” the governor said, “and we also have an enormous agenda on other issues of great importance to New York State that was being stymied by the constant and almost singular focus on this issue.”

Illegal immigration and id issues are topics that I tend to recreationally mull over and waffle around quite a bit on.

On the ID front, I can see the value of making sure that everyone participating in society is able to provide adequate identification…given that today’s society is hung up on identity issues.

(Personally, I’m a bit disappointed that we are so hung up on identity, and I think that if we are going to be this concerned we ought to go ahead and start tattooing barcodes and/or implanting RFID chips onto/into the backs of everyone’s hands or on/in everyone’s forehead….but that’s a discussion for another day.)

However, I am also aware of the fraud issues that arose when Tennessee and North Carolina sought to issue immigration-blind drivers licenses. If you are creating a legal/procedural process to grant some legitimacy to illegality, I can believe there’s an inherent incentive for some folks to abuse that process.

Stepping back and looking at this as part of the larger immigration debate…well, it’s a really difficult picture to gaze upon.

A good law-and-order argument can be made that it is completely unacceptable to in any way, shape, or form condone a systemic flaunting of our laws. If as a society we regard immigration law with contempt…or disregard it completely…aren’t we opening the door to ignoring other laws? If we’re going to have a law, it should either be enforced, or revised into something realistically enforceable.

However, I also see the sense in a realistic observation that there are millions of undocumented immigrants in the country…and many (most?) of them fill a useful role in today’s society. True, if the labor pool formed by undocumented immigrants suddenly disappeared, the economy would adapt, either by supporting higher pay that would attract workers with legal status, or by moving away from industries that exist due to the availability of cheap labor.

Also, we have that niggling detail about whether it’s realistic to seek to deport a few million folks.

If press and blog coverage on the debate surrounding immigration can be believed, it’s a rather polarized set of opinions. Many folks take the seemingly xenophobic stance that all illegal immigrants ought to be removed from the country, and borders be made perfectly secure….cost and damage to the economy be danged.

Other folks take a far more liberal stance of opening the borders and forgiving the folks already here…ignoring the potential instability in the economy a potential influx of people and drain on social services such a change would entail.

Meanwhile, I’m standing here somewhere in the middle, thinking that something ought to be done to instill some sense in immigration policy—that folks who want to come here to work ought to be able to do so, without too much hassle, and assuming that there is room for them in the workforce.

That doesn’t do anything about the status of the undocumented folks who are alredy here…but I’m not sure that’s a question that has an easy answer…especially when immigration law is messed-up and unenforced, providing almost no disincentive to keep folks from continuing to ignore it.

Seen at Blue Mass Group:

ICE agents were in the [with held for privacy of reporter] District Court today questioning Defendants who utilized the services of an interpreter. The agents asked for ID and wanted to know how the Defendants came into the country. One person was detained (a female), but my client was released allegedly because there was no bed to house him. This happened inside the Courthouse, but not in the Courtroom. The female was taken to lockup. She was not placed in a cell, but was placed in a chair within the lockup area, which of course is secured.

I consider this very serious development. This could impact access to justice. Women could be afraid to file restraining orders. Witnesses and victimes alike could become afraid to testify. This has not hit the press yet, it is a report directly from the court where it happened, to me and to others who serve the indigent accused community.

Setting aside my issues with our messed-up immigration policy for the moment, I can understand and appreciate the desire to step up enforcement of immigration laws including the use of creative tactics.

However, there are a few places where such creativity and enforcement aren’t appropriate. A court house is one of them, for the reasons AmberPaw mentions.

Seen in the Washington Wire blog at the Wall Street Journal:

Congress allows 66,000 H-2B visas yearly, but issues half of them in the first half of the fiscal year for winter employers and half after April 1 for employers who need workers in the summer. Seasonal employers have come to depend on the visas, which allow them to hire low-skilled workers from overseas. That means the visas have been snatched up earlier and earlier every year, and this year disappeared before the year officially began.

The post notes that an additional drain on the system was the expiration of an exemption for former H-2B recipients having failed to have been renewed in the immigration Brouhaha earlier this year.

With demand so high, and the quotas so low, is it any wonder that there is such an incentive for some businesses to tolerate the presence of undocumented immigrants in the country?