Senators Reach Immigration Bill Compromise

[Texsox]

The The McAllen Monitor, a newspaper on the border.

 

McALLEN — Local leaders and immigrant advocates said the U.S. Senate’s plan to offer 12 million illegal immigrants green cards and more visas for skilled and educated workers would do little to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States.

 

“The waiting lists for green cards are currently 10 to 15 years long,” said Vaughn Cox, spokesman for the labor group La Union del Pueblo Entero. “That is not a realistic hope for someone who has to migrate.”

 

Senators reached a bipartisan compromise Thursday that will most likely be debated on the Senate floor Monday. It would allow the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States to stay for eight to 13 more years, as long as they pay a $5,000 fine and a processing fee. President Bush said he supported the bill.

 

In return, the head of the family would need to leave the country at the end of the period to await their green card in their home country. Children under 18 and spouses will be allowed to wait in the United States. The time period for that wait hasn’t been set yet.

 

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) was one of the senators involved in the three-month long negotiations, said his spokesman, John Drogin.

 

In a conference call Thursday with reporters, Cornyn said the bill is a “work in progress” and that a better job needs to be done to battle identity theft and document fraud.

 

He also called for doubling the size of the U.S. Border Patrol and boosting worksite enforcement, both components the Senate’s plan requires before implementing any new immigration law.

 

“I do not support a repetition of the amnesty that passed in 1986,” Cornyn said. “Granting legal status to 12 million people is problematic.”

 

The plan also includes a new guest worker program that would allot 400,000 visas a year.

 

Workers could renew that every two years, for a maximum of three times. These visas would be awarded based on a point system that values skilled and educated workers more than families, which currently have a more likely chance of obtaining temporary visas. Agricultural workers would be covered under a separate program.

 

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.), one of the lead negotiators, said the compromise, which is 380 pages long, would most likely be demonized by critics for being too lenient or too harsh.

 

“It has been a prodigious effort over the last three months,” he said during a nationally televised press conference. “No matter what we craft, we will be attacked.”

 

The bill is more of a security bill than an immigration bill, said Michele Waslin, director of immigration policy research for the National Council of La Raza.

 

Visas for temporary workers would be handed out on a point system that shifts weight to high-skilled and educated workers, making it less likely for families to get visas, she said.

 

“It really undermines our whole foundation for our immigration system right now,” she said. “We think it is very problematic that it allows people in for a short period of time and then forces them to leave; we don’t want to create a second-class worker that has fewer rights and is vulnerable.”

 

The Mexican government declined to comment pending a review of the proposal, according to Miriam Medel-Garcia, spokeswoman for the consulate in McAllen.

 

The U.S. House of Representatives is set to begin debating its bill once the Senate approves its own bill. It’s estimated that will happen around June or July, said U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, whose district includes Starr and western Hidalgo counties.

 

He and other congressmen were briefed on the Senate compromise about an hour before an agreement was reached. He would not specifically comment on the Senate version, but said he supports any bill that enforces border security, enacts a guest-worker program and deals with the 12 million illegal immigrants.

 

“If (illegal immigrants) follow rules, pay taxes and don’t violate laws, we will let them into our community,” he said.

 

“I am glad that the Senate has started some type of process to legalize the 11 or 12 million illegal immigrants.”

——

[southsider2k5]

“If (illegal immigrants) follow rules, pay taxes and don’t violate laws, we will let them into our community,” he said.

 

I love oxymorons.

[Texsox]

I love oxymorons.

 

A stretch, but nice

[NorthSideSox72]

Since when is taking the worst parts of both sides' ideas and combining them a compromise?

[kapkomet]

Since when is taking the worst parts of both sides' ideas and combining them a compromise?

Exactly. This is the biggest horses*** bill to come out of Congress in a long, long time.

[vandy125]

Instead of just calling it a bad bill, can either one of you explain what is bad in it, and why it is bad? I just want to hear some thoughts on it since I haven't heard anything actually discussing different points in the bill.

 

What could have been done to make it better?

[kapkomet]

Well, for starters,

 

N-O A-M-N-E-S-T-Y.

 

Bye!

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Well, for starters,

 

N-O A-M-N-E-S-T-Y.

 

Bye!

 

 

^^^^

 

What he said.

[NorthSideSox72]

Instead of just calling it a bad bill, can either one of you explain what is bad in it, and why it is bad? I just want to hear some thoughts on it since I haven't heard anything actually discussing different points in the bill.

 

What could have been done to make it better?

Amnesty is bad.

 

The idea of it being OK if you pay for it is a bad joke - most of them can't afford it anyway, so what's the point?

 

It doesn't add in a reasonable guest worker program (I don't think, but its vague on that part), which should be part of a good bill.

 

It does nothing to change the immigration thresholds to match ECONOMIC NEEDS, which is what it should be doing.

 

It does nothing to address the joke of a bill from last year that said OK to a laughable wall, with no funding.

 

It does nothing to address addition of technological solutions to combat illegal immigration.

[Rex Kickass]

Amnesty may be bad, but the alternative is worse IMO.

 

We have 12 million illegal residents in this country. The vast majority are here to live peacefully and within the law once they get here.

 

If we don't do something to legalize their status, we're left with two alternatives. We can kick out 12 million people - provided we can find them, at an enormous cost and energy to our country. Or we can do nothing, which is what we're doing now. This allows us to maintain an underclass of workers without protection, without decent pay, and that are going to need to suckle on the teat of our social services because of their workplace situation.

[southsider2k5]

Amnesty may be bad, but the alternative is worse IMO.

 

We have 12 million illegal residents in this country. The vast majority are here to live peacefully and within the law once they get here.

 

If we don't do something to legalize their status, we're left with two alternatives. We can kick out 12 million people - provided we can find them, at an enormous cost and energy to our country. Or we can do nothing, which is what we're doing now. This allows us to maintain an underclass of workers without protection, without decent pay, and that are going to need to suckle on the teat of our social services because of their workplace situation.

 

Actually I would argue the opposite is going to happen. Once these people are legalized, there is going to be a HUGE influx of 12 million new people utilizing social services that they never had used before, because they had no legal standing to them. Its one of the costs of this bill that no one seems to be mentioning.

[Rex Kickass]

With the exception of Unemployment Insurance, and WIC/foodstamps/welfare, exactly what do they not use?

 

Again, the alternative is that we pay for it anyway. Either by spending the resources to round up these people and send them home, OR by doing nothing and further exacerbating the situation that everyone seems to need to be fixed.

 

I don't know that this particular bill is a good fit - I know little about it, but I'm not a big fan of the Dobbs school of immigration reform either.

[southsider2k5]

Social Security would be a huge one that is missing from your list.

 

Plus you act like that list isn't much... Of the top 5 budget expendatures for the United States, 4 of them are entitlement programs. (medicare/caid, SSI, unemployment/welfare) Those are vital lifelines for a lot of people, and they are also no equipped for a huge influx of people. Its either going to take a major funding increase, or a cut in benefits to the people who can't afford it. If you start throwing 12 million more people into these programs, they are going to collapse.... And that's why no one is talking about them. If the politicians were telling the truth about the explosion of entitlement programs we were about to see, then this bill would be rightfully DOA.

[Rex Kickass]

You don't receive SSI benefits unless you pay into the system. So 12 million workers who are now legal, do not qualify for social security benefits. Not until they work into the system.

[southsider2k5]

So they pay into the system for a couple of years, and then they spend their golden years drawing out. Its just like any of the progressive taxes, they will take out of it much more than they pay into it based on their expected income levels.

[Texsox]

Actually I would argue the opposite is going to happen. Once these people are legalized, there is going to be a HUGE influx of 12 million new people utilizing social services that they never had used before, because they had no legal standing to them. Its one of the costs of this bill that no one seems to be mentioning.

 

There is probably more unknown about that statement as any in discussing the problem. On one hand, we are told they are already costing us billions in these benefits. Then the same people will turn around and claim they are not using them, but will after becoming legal.

 

Bottom line, we need a system that ties immigration to jobs. That does as much as humanly possible to have these humans "on the books". That decreases the desire for people to risk their lives to find some menial labor job in the US. That equalizes the situation where Cubans become instant citizenswhen they touch the beach, but makes a criminal of any Mexican who does the same thing.

 

It takes government support for the working poor to live in this country. Our options include lowering all our standards to live at what the poorest can afford in terms of interstate highways, clean water and air, military, etc. Or accept that the taxpayers with the most resources will shoulder a greater share of the financial load that it takes to have our publicly supported schools, parks, military, etc.

[Rex Kickass]

So they pay into the system for a couple of years, and then they spend their golden years drawing out. Its just like any of the progressive taxes, they will take out of it much more than they pay into it based on their expected income levels.

 

I'm 29. I have paid into SSI for 13 years now. I don't yet qualify for full benefits.

 

And honestly, how many of these people are 65?

[southsider2k5]

There is probably more unknown about that statement as any in discussing the problem. On one hand, we are told they are already costing us billions in these benefits. Then the same people will turn around and claim they are not using them, but will after becoming legal.

 

Bottom line, we need a system that ties immigration to jobs. That does as much as humanly possible to have these humans "on the books". That decreases the desire for people to risk their lives to find some menial labor job in the US. That equalizes the situation where Cubans become instant citizenswhen they touch the beach, but makes a criminal of any Mexican who does the same thing.

 

It takes government support for the working poor to live in this country. Our options include lowering all our standards to live at what the poorest can afford in terms of interstate highways, clean water and air, military, etc. Or accept that the taxpayers with the most resources will shoulder a greater share of the financial load that it takes to have our publicly supported schools, parks, military, etc.

 

I know in Absolute-land things are either black or white, but there are both services that are being strained by illegals, and others that have not been strained at all. Things such jails, hospitals, and food pantries are bursting at the seams. Many other government programs which have residency requirements have not been touched yet.

 

I'm 29. I have paid into SSI for 13 years now. I don't yet qualify for full benefits.

 

And honestly, how many of these people are 65?

 

They aren't 65 today, but many will be soon enough. With the future status of SSI looking as scary as it does, adding 12 to 20 million generally low earning people isn't going to help.

[EvilMonkey]

I'm 29. I have paid into SSI for 13 years now. I don't yet qualify for full benefits.

 

And honestly, how many of these people are 65?

Social Security pays out for a whole lot of things in addition to simply being 65.

 

I wonder why AARP isn't against the immigration bills? That many people suddenly added to the program would overwhelm it. Seniors had a s***fit when Bush tried to privatize part of it because they thought it would lessen the pot of money available to them. Wonder what they think 12 million illegals would do to the system?

[Rex Kickass]

Because I think its a straw man argument. I don't see how adding 12 million people to legal placement within our system will suddenly break SSI.

[Texsox]

I know in Absolute-land things are either black or white, but there are both services that are being strained by illegals, and others that have not been strained at all. Things such jails, hospitals, and food pantries are bursting at the seams. Many other government programs which have residency requirements have not been touched yet.

 

I hadn't considered it from that angle. Good point, I know the hospitals here have a huge financial problem with all the "tourists" who go into labor while "visiting" the US. Of course their babies then have dual citizenship. Something I think really needs to be looked at. The world has changed in 200 years and is much more mobile.

 

Looking at the numbers, whomever is working these jobs would qualify for the benefits. Unemployment is continuing to be very low, So if we suddenly removed those workers, who would take those jobs and not also be taking benefits? The only group that works those jobs and doesn't take benefits are illegals. So I'm not certain how that should fit into the solution.

[EvilMonkey]

Because I think its a straw man argument. I don't see how adding 12 million people to legal placement within our system will suddenly break SSI.

I didn't say 'suddenly', but add 12 million people, and if the usual percentage get hurt and qualify for SSDI or SSI, that is alot of extra money going out that wasn't planned for 10 or even 5 years ago. It's not hard to qualify for this either,

The amount needed for a credit changes from year to year. In 2007, for example, you earn one credit for each $1000 of wages or self-employment income. When you've earned $4,000, you've earned your four credits for the year.

 

The number of work credits you need to qualify for disability benefits depends on your age when you become disabled. Generally, you need 40 credits, 20 of which were earned in the last 10 years ending with the year you become disabled. However, younger workers may qualify with fewer credits.

So $4000 per year until you get $40,000. So in 10 years, you have people eligble for SSDI. There is a calculator on the SSA page. if someone made $40,000 of REPORTED income for the 10 year period, and then became 'disabled', they would be eligible for $1223 per month. Spouses and children would also be eligble to receive money thru this program up to an additonal $800. And if the breadwinner dies after the 10 years, his survivors get money, $929 per month for your spouse and and additonal $929 per child up to a family maximum of $2312 per month. The 30 year old former illegal who works 10 years then drops dead now has a family getting 2 grand a month for doign nothing, until the spouse reaches 67 and the kids reach 18. I think this benefit far outweighs anythign that person/family put into the system. According the the governments own site, workers have a 3 in 10 chance of becoming disabled before they reach retirement age.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/...shot/index.html

According to the govt, about 9% of the total SS beneficiaries are getting SSI. It all adds up.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/s...04/table01.html

This shows you how many people get SSI now, and how much it costs. Alot. It MAY not be as dire as some predict, and certainly not as sudden as you seemed to THINK I said, but it will be dramatic if they are all made legal and released into the system. And it STILL doesn't explain the silence from AARP. It's as if thier hearing aides all died or something. They go balistic when you even look crosseyed at social security. You and I can debate the effect this would have, but it WOULD have an effect. They should be screaming as loud as thier leathery lungs will allow them to, but yet they are curiously silent. Why?

Edited May 24, 2007 by Alpha Dog

[southsider2k5]

I didn't say 'suddenly', but add 12 million people, and if the usual percentage get hurt and qualify for SSDI or SSI, that is alot of extra money going out that wasn't planned for 10 or even 5 years ago. It's not hard to qualify for this either,

 

So $4000 per year until you get $40,000. So in 10 years, you have people eligble for SSDI. There is a calculator on the SSA page. if someone made $40,000 of REPORTED income for the 10 year period, and then became 'disabled', they would be eligible for $1223 per month. Spouses and children would also be eligble to receive money thru this program up to an additonal $800. And if the breadwinner dies after the 10 years, his survivors get money, $929 per month for your spouse and and additonal $929 per child up to a family maximum of $2312 per month. The 30 year old former illegal who works 10 years then drops dead now has a family getting 2 grand a month for doign nothing, until the spouse reaches 67 and the kids reach 18. I think this benefit far outweighs anythign that person/family put into the system. According the the governments own site, workers have a 3 in 10 chance of becoming disabled before they reach retirement age.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/...shot/index.html

According to the govt, about 9% of the total SS beneficiaries are getting SSI. It all adds up.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/s...04/table01.html

This shows you how many people get SSI now, and how much it costs. Alot. It MAY not be as dire as some predict, and certainly not as sudden as you seemed to THINK I said, but it will be dramatic if they are all made legal and released into the system. And it STILL doesn't explain the silence from AARP. It's as if thier hearing aides all died or something. They go balistic when you even look crosseyed at social security. You and I can debate the effect this would have, but it WOULD have an effect. They should be screaming as loud as thier leathery lungs will allow them to, but yet they are curiously silent. Why?

 

Heck you can take that a step further and even start to figure out that these people probably aren't going to pay in nearly what they get out of the system. If these people are indeed coming to in to work our "unwanted" and lowpaying jobs, SSI is only taxed at 7.65% of income. So for someone who is even earning as much as $10 an hour and working fulltime, they are only paying in just under $1600 a year in FICA. [$10X40hrs/wkX52wks)times 0.0765.] So in other words if they work 10 years in the system, they will take out more than the spend in about 13 months, and that is only if they are single and have no dependants. If you take the highend earning potential of $2312 then it takes just under 7 months to become a net earner on the SSI program. Now starting taking that math times millions, and tell me how it does not place a huge new burden on the system?

[kapkomet]

I think it's sad that America's whole foundation is now totally dependant on the illegals, at least that's what the supporters of this bill tell me.

 

What crap.

[Controlled Chaos]

The Amnesty Fraud

By Thomas Sowell

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

 

Nothing is more common than political "solutions" to immediate problems which create much bigger problems down the road. The current immigration bill in the Senate is a classic example.

 

The big talking point of those who want to legalize the illegal immigrants currently in the United States is to say that it is "unrealistic" to round up and deport 12 million people.

 

Back in 1986 it was "unrealistic" to round up and deport the 3 million illegal immigrants in the United States then. So they were given amnesty -- honestly labeled, back then -- which is precisely why there are now 12 million illegal immigrants.

 

As a result of the current amnesty bill -- not honestly labeled, this time -- will it be "unrealistic" to round up and deport 40 million or 50 million illegal immigrants in the future?

 

If the current immigration bill is as "realistic" as its advocates claim, why is it being rushed through the Senate faster than a local zoning ordinance could be passed?

 

We are, after all, talking about a major and irreversible change in the American population, the American culture, and the American political balance. Why is there no time to talk about it?

 

Are its advocates afraid that the voting public might discover what a fraud it is? The biggest fraud is denying that this is an amnesty bill.

 

Its advocates' argument is that illegal immigrants will have to meet certain requirements to become citizens. But amnesty is not about how you become a citizen.

 

The word is from the same root as "amnesia." It means you forget or overlook some crime, as if it never happened. All this elaborate talk about the steps illegal immigrants must go through to become citizens is a distraction from the crime they committed when they crossed the border illegally.

 

Instead, all attention is focused on what to do to accommodate those who committed this crime. It is a question that would be recognized as an insult to our intelligence on any other issue.

 

For example, there are undoubtedly thousands, perhaps millions, of unsolved crimes and uncaught criminals in this country and we cannot realistically expect to find and prosecute all these fugitives from justice.

 

But does anyone suggest that our focus should be on trying to normalize the lives of domestic fugitives from justice -- "bring them out of the shadows" in Ted Kennedy's phrase -- and develop some path by which they can be given an acceptable legal status?

 

Does anyone suggest that, if domestic criminals come forward, pay some fine, and apply to have their crimes overlooked, they can be put on a path to be restored to good standing in our society?

 

Just as we don't need to solve every crime and catch every criminal, in order to have deterrents to crime, neither do we have to ferret out and deport every one of the 12 million illegal aliens in this country in order to deter a flood of new illegal aliens.

 

All across this country, illegal aliens are being caught by the police for all sorts of violations of American laws, from traffic laws to laws against murder. Yet in many, if not most, places the police are under orders not to report these illegal aliens to the federal government.

 

Imprisoning known and apprehended lawbreakers for the crime of illegally entering this country, in addition to whatever other punishment they receive for other laws that they have broken -- and then sending them back where they came from after their sentences have been served -- would be something that would not be lost on others who are here illegally or who are thinking of coming here illegally.

 

Just as people can do many things better for themselves than the government can do those things for them, illegal aliens could begin deporting themselves if they found that their crime of coming here illegally was being punished as a serious crime, and that they themselves were no longer being treated as guests of the taxpayers when it comes to their medical care, the education of their children, and other welfare state benefits.

 

Incidentally, remember that 700-mile fence that Congress authorized last year? Only two miles have been built. That should tell us something about how seriously they are going to enforce other border security provisions in the current bill.

 

 

The Amnesty Fraud: Part II

By Thomas Sowell

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

 

Every aspect of the current immigration bill, and of the arguments made for it, has Fraud written all over it.

 

The first, and perhaps biggest, fraud is the argument that illegal aliens are "doing jobs Americans won't do." There are no such jobs.

 

Even in the sector of the economy in which illegal immigrants have the highest representation -- agriculture -- they are just 24 percent of the workers. Where did the other 76 percent come from, if these are jobs that Americans won't do?

 

The argument that illegal agricultural workers are "making a contribution to the economy" is likewise misleading.

 

For well over half a century, this country has had chronic agricultural surpluses which have cost the taxpayers billions of dollars a year to buy, store, and try to get rid of on the world market at money-losing prices.

 

If there were fewer agricultural workers and smaller agricultural surpluses, the taxpayers would save money.

 

What about illegal immigrants working outside of agriculture? They are a great bargain for their employers, because they are usually hard-working people who accept low pay and don't cause any trouble on the job.

 

But they are no bargain for the taxpayers who cover their medical bills, the education of their children and the costs of imprisoning those who commit a disproportionate share of crime.

 

Analogies with immigrants who came to this country in the 19th century and early 20th century are hollow, and those who make such analogies must know how different the situation is today.

 

People who crossed an ocean to get here, many generations ago, usually came here to become Americans. There were organized efforts within their communities, as well as in the larger society around them, to help them assimilate.

 

Today, there are activists working in just the opposite direction, to keep foreigners foreign, to demand that society adjust to them by making everything accessible to them in their own language, minimizing their need to learn English.

 

As activists are working hard to keep alive a foreign subculture in so-called "bilingual" and other programs, they are also feeding the young especially with a steady diet of historic grievances about things that happened before the immigrants got here -- and before they were born.

 

These Balkanization efforts are joined by other Americans as part of the "multicultural" ideology that pervades the education system, the media, and politics.

 

The ease with which people can move back and forth between the United States and Mexico -- as contrasted with those who made a one-way trip across the Atlantic in earlier times -- reduces still further the likelihood that these new immigrants will assimilate and become an integral part of the American society as readily as many earlier immigrants did.

 

Claims that the new immigration bill will have "tough" requirements, including learning English, have little credibility in view of the way existing laws are not being enforced.

 

What does "learning English" mean? I can say "arrivederci" and "buongiorno" but does that mean that I speak Italian?

 

Does anyone expect a serious effort to require a real knowledge of English from a government that captures people trying to enter the country illegally and then turns them loose inside the United States with instructions to report back to court -- which of course they are not about to do?

 

Another fraudulent argument for the new immigration bill is that it would facilitate the "unification of families." People can unify their families by going back home to them. Otherwise every illegal immigrant accepted can mean a dozen relatives to follow.

 

"What can we do with the 12 million people already here illegally?" is the question asked by amnesty supporters. We can stop them from becoming 40 million or 50 million, the way 3 million illegals became 12 million after the previous amnesty.

 

The most fundamental question of all has not been asked: Who should decide how many people, with what qualifications and prospects, are to be admitted into this country? Is that decision supposed to be made by anyone in Mexico who wants to come here?

 

 

The Amnesty Fraud: Part III

By Thomas Sowell

Thursday, May 24, 2007

 

Whose problem is the immigration bill in Congress supposed to solve? The country's problem with dangerously porous borders? The illegal immigrants' problem? Or politicians' problems?

 

It has been painfully clear for years that the country's problem with insecure borders and floods of foreigners who remain a foreign -- and growing -- part of the American population has the lowest priority of the three.

 

Virtually every step -- even token steps -- that Congress and the administration have taken toward securing the border has been backed into under pressure from the voters.

 

The National Guardsmen who were sent to the border but not assigned to guard the border, the 700-mile fence on paper that has become the two-mile fence in practice, and the existing "tough" penalties for the crime of crossing the border illegally that in practice mean turning the illegal border crossers loose so that they can try, try again -- such actions speak louder than words.

 

The new immigration bill that supposedly secures the borders first, before starting the process of legalizing the illegal immigrants, in fact does nothing of the sort.

 

It sets up various programs and procedures -- but does not wait to see if they in fact reduce the flow of illegal immigrants before taking the irrevocable step of making American citizenship available to 12 million people who came here illegally.

 

This solves the problem of those illegal immigrants who want to get citizenship. The steps that they have to go through allow politicians to say that this is not amnesty because these are "tough" requirements.

 

But, whether these requirements are "tough" or not, and regardless of how they are enforced or not, there is nothing to say that the 12 million people here illegally have to start the process of becoming citizens.

 

Those who do not choose to become citizens -- which may well be the majority of illegal immigrants -- face no more prospect of being punished for the crime of entering the country illegally than they do now.

 

With the focus now shifted to the process of getting citizenship, those illegal immigrants who just want to stay and make some money without being bothered to become part of American society can be forgotten, along with their crime.

 

This bill gets the issue off the table and out of the political spotlight. That solves the problem of politicians who want to mollify American voters in general without risking the loss of the Hispanic vote.

 

The Hispanic vote can be expected to become larger and larger as the new de facto amnesty can be expected to increase the number of illegal border crossers, just as the previous -- and honestly labeled -- amnesty bill of 1986 led to a quadrupling of the number of illegals.

 

The larger the Hispanic vote becomes, the less seriously are the restrictive features of the immigration bill likely to be enforced.

 

The growth of the illegal population is irreversible but the means of controlling the growth of illegals are quite reversible, both de facto through the watering down of the enforcement of "tough" requirements and de jure through later repeals of requirements deemed too "tough."

 

One of the remarkable aspects of the proposed immigration "reform" is its provisions for cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants. Employers are to be punished for not detecting and excluding illegal immigrants, when the government itself is derelict in doing so.

 

Employers not only lack expertise in law enforcement, they can be sued for "discrimination" by any of the armies of lawyers who make such lawsuits their lucrative specialty.

 

But no penalties are likely to be enforced against state and local politicians who openly declare "sanctuary" for illegal immigrants. Officials sworn to uphold the law instead forbid the police to report the illegal status of immigrants to federal officials when these illegals are arrested for other crimes.

 

This is perfectly consistent for a bill that seeks above all to solve politicians' problems, not the country's.

 

 

 

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.