The president, the Senate, and the House were all sent to Washington
by American citizens. Every decision we make must be guided by how it
will impact the lives and livelihoods of the people who sent us here on
their behalf. Yet in the current immigration debate, the American
citizenry is the one group that has been almost entirely forgotten.
While
the Gang of Eight legislation provided special interest groups — from
La Raza to the Chamber of Commerce — with their desired provisions, the
core interests of the American people were sacrificed completely.
Perhaps
the least discussed but most important feature of the Gang of Eight’s
immigration plan is its arrangement with certain business groups to
provide them with multiple avenues to avoid hiring U.S. workers by
bringing in record numbers of workers from abroad — many of whom will be
granted permanent residency and thus eventual citizenship.
Over
the next decade, the Senate plan provides roughly 30 million mostly
lower-skill immigrants with permanent residency through green cards.
Less than 10 percent of these green cards are allocated through the
Gang’s alleged merit system. Moreover, green-card holders will be able
to petition in future years to bring in their relatives, including
elderly parents, commencing a permanent expansion of chain migration
unrelated to skill set.
On top of the 30 million green cards, the
Gang of Eight’s proposal also doubles the number of non-immigrant guest
workers admitted each year from approximately 600,000 today to an
average of 1.2 million annually over the next decade. In the first year
of the bill, due to the inclusion of family members, the number will
spike to 1.6 million, with only 7 percent doing agricultural work. The
other 93 percent will be hired to fill jobs in virtually every sector,
including construction work, nursing, teaching at public schools,
driving trucks, heavy equipment operators, mining and manufacturing.
At
the same time, a record number of Americans have either left or been
pushed out of the workforce. Less than 60 percent of U.S. adults are
working, a record 11 million are on disability, another record 47
million are on food stamps, median household net worth has dropped 60
percent since 2007, and inflation-adjusted wages are lower than in 1999.
The number of people who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer is
4.3 million, and 11.3 million people — including nearly a quarter of
all youths — are looking for a job but can’t find one.
There is not a shortage of workers, but a shortage of jobs. We
cannot place more and more Americans on welfare while employing an
ever-expanding pool of workers from abroad in their place. Instead, we
must focus on getting Americans off of welfare and into well-paying jobs
that can support a family.
The Congressional Budget Office
confirms the Senate bill would not only increase unemployment but would
reduce wages for a dozen years. How can Congress justify moving any
proposal that will cause such damage to struggling U.S. workers?
But
even the CBO’s report underestimates the negative consequences.
Harvard’s Dr. George Borjas, the nation’s leading expert on the
economics of immigration policy, has found that between 1980-2000, high
levels of low-skill immigration caused a 7.4 percent decline in the
wages of U.S. workers without a high school diploma. Considering that
the Senate bill would triple the number of people granted permanent
legal residency over the next decade, the impact on wages will be
disastrous.
There is also a draft proposal from two GOP lawmakers
in the House to increase by as much as sixfold the number of low-skilled
non-farm guest workers. The co-author of this proposal recently made
the oft-recycled claim that such a plan is necessary to prevent future
illegal immigration. This argument is fallacious for many reasons. Most
fundamentally, the United States is a sovereign nation that can
establish and enforce immigration levels based on national consensus.
Business groups do not have the right to demand as many workers brought
in as they want, threatening to hire workers illegally if those demands
are not met.
The CBO also demonstrates why this justification is
false. It is clear from its analysis that the Senate’s proposed increase
in guest workers will be a driving force in future illegal immigration,
with millions overstaying their visas. Why should we expect any
different? Proponents of “comprehensive reform” argue that the
enforcement of immigration law must be suspended if it disrupts family
unity. In other words, they are arguing today that the very guest
workers they wish to bring in tomorrow cannot be sent home if they have
children and cannot be refused if they wish to bring relatives to join
them.
We have heard repeatedly from House leadership that the
Senate bill is “dead on arrival” and that, instead, the House will
pursue a comprehensive proposal in smaller chunks. Sen. Charles Schumer
(D-N.Y.), certain business groups, and anti-enforcement advocates have
all expressed optimism about the House’s approach. Presumably, this is
because they believe the House’s individual bills will be melded into
the Gang of Eight’s proposal (either in conference or closed-door
negotiations) to form a new comprehensive bill.
The House must
disavow the Senate bill completely and offer it no hope of reprieve,
reprisal, or resurrection. Instead, the House must refocus the
immigration debate on the rights, needs, and concerns of U.S. citizens.
By promoting the constitutional rule of law, rising wages, and economic
assimilation, the House can ensure a better tomorrow for all U.S.
citizens — immigrant and native-born alike.
Opinion Editoral in The Hill
No comments:
Post a Comment