Clueless Congress, Part II

Further evidence that our elected representatives in Washington are off their collective rocker can be found in the immigration bill just passed by the Senate, which will be ineffective and probably counterproductive. (The bill, that is, not the Senate -- although "ineffective" and "counterproductive" aren't bad ways of describing the latter.)

The New York Times offers this description of the bill:

Under the Senate agreement, illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States for five years or more, about seven million people, would eventually be granted citizenship if they remained employed, passed background checks, paid fines and back taxes, and enrolled in English classes.

Illegal immigrants who have lived here two to five years, about three million people, would have to leave the country briefly and receive a temporary work visa before returning, as a guest worker. Over time, they would be allowed to apply for permanent residency and ultimately citizenship.

Illegal immigrants who have been here less than two years, about one million people, would be required to leave the country altogether. They could apply for the guest worker program, but they would not be guaranteed acceptance in it.

The legislation would also require employers to use a new employment verification system that would distinguish between legal and illegal workers. In addition, it would impose stiff fines for violations by employers, create legal-immigrant documents resistant to counterfeiting, increase the number of Border Patrol agents and mandate other enforcement measures.

Consider what this is saying. If you've been in this country for five years -- presumably, this means you're pretty well established in the American economy -- you get to apply for citizenship, which, according to news reports, will take about 11 years to be approved. Well, so what? What difference is it going to make, either for the country or for the immigrant individual, if the latter becomes a citizen or not? In some abstract sense, it might make people feel better -- but in terms of substance, I can't see the difference. My first consulting client, back in 1991, was a Swiss national who had become a very successful businessman in this country and abroad, but had found there was no need to become an American citizen. Why should a Mexican laborer think differently?

As for the people here less than five years, who will be "required" (I say that in quotes, because in order to be required to do anything, they first have to be identified) to go home "briefly" and apply for a work visa, or if here less than two years, have to go home for good... well, who's going to own up to that? People who are here illegally in the first place are, by definition, lacking verified documentation of when they came in. When the INS raids a workplace to try and identify illegal aliens, they're all going to say, "Oh, sí, I've been here for more than five years, so I get to stay, ¿no?" How many, I ask you, are going to admit to being recent arrivals and thus subject to being kicked out of the country?

This whole bill is just political grandstanding. It will accomplish nothing -- there may be a few longtime foreign workers who will sign up for citizenship, but overall, it won't have any effect on the inflow of workers across the border.

Which, as I've argued before, is really not such a bad thing. Our economy is telling us that it needs more low-end labor. We need people to pick vegetables -- and also to mow lawns, build houses, and do all kinds of other manual-labor tasks. This is exactly what happened 100 years ago, when people like my grandparents found they were having trouble making ends meet in Greece and came here to make a life for themselves -- and to help build the American economy into the powerhouse it is today.

Urb's Blog