[Mb-civic] Build a Fence -- And Amnesty - Robert J. Samuelson - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

Build a Fence -- And Amnesty

By Robert J. Samuelson
The Washington Post
Wednesday, March 8, 2006; A19

It's time to build a real fence or a wall along every foot of the 1,989 
miles of the U.S.-Mexican border. There can be only two arguments 
against this approach to keeping out illegal immigrants: (1) it won't 
work -- possible, but we won't know unless we try; or (2) we don't want 
it to work -- then, we should say so and open our borders to anyone but 
criminals and terrorists. Either way, we need more candor in our 
immigration debates. Now is the time, because Congress is considering 
its first major immigration legislation in years.

In 2005 the Border Patrol stopped 1.19 million people trying to enter 
the United States illegally; 98.5 percent of them were caught along the 
southern border. Of those who got through and stayed (crude estimate: 
some 500,000 annually), about two-thirds lack a high school education. 
Even a country as accepting of newcomers as the United States cannot 
effortlessly absorb infinite numbers of poor and unskilled workers. 
Legal immigration totals 750,000 to 1 million people annually, many of 
them also unskilled.

I do not like advocating a fence. It looks and feels bad. It's easily 
stigmatized as racist. It would antagonize Mexico. The imagery is 
appalling, but it beats the alternative: a growing underclass and social 
tensions. Moreover, a genuine fence would probably work. The 
construction of about 10 miles of steel and concrete barriers up to 15 
feet high in San Diego has reduced illegal crossings in that sector by 
about 95 percent since 1992, reports Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), a 
supporter of a U.S.-Mexico fence. Sure, there will be tunnels and 
ladders. But getting in will be harder. Policing will be easier.

We also need to stiffen employer fines for hiring illegal immigrants. 
Businesses should have to check prospective workers against computer 
databases with Social Security numbers, passports or immigration 
documents. Now employers only have to inspect physical documents, which 
are easily forged. Even these lax rules are widely flouted and poorly 
policed. In 2004 the Department of Homeland Security cited only three 
employers for possible violations, says the Government Accountability 
Office. With an estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in 
the United States, that's mighty slim.

Fewer jobs and genuine border control ought to curb illegal immigration. 
Good. Naturally, there's another point of view. It is that the United 
States needs more unskilled workers to fill jobs native-born Americans 
won't take. One solution is to admit more unskilled workers legally. By 
this view, Hispanics are assimilating economically and culturally as 
fast as some groups in the past.

Perhaps. But common sense and available evidence suggest skepticism. If 
there are "shortages" of unskilled American workers, the obvious remedy 
is to raise their wages. A Texas roofing contractor testified to 
Congress that he couldn't get enough roofers at $9 an hour. Okay, 
increase it to $10 or $12. Higher wages will bring forth more workers. 
Perish the thought. Business groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, clamor for more guest workers. That's a euphemism for cheap 
labor. These business groups seem unperturbed by extravagant increases 
in chief executives' pay. But they're horrified by anything that might 
raise the wages of maids, waitresses, laborers or gardeners.

As for assimilation, it's true that millions of Hispanic families are 
moving into -- and reshaping -- the American mainstream. But average 
trends look less encouraging. Since 1990 about 90 percent of the 
increase in people living below the government's poverty lines has come 
among Hispanics. That has to be mainly immigrants and their U.S.-born 
children. In a report, the Pew Hispanic Center notes:

· Residential segregation is increasing. In 2000, 43 percent of 
Hispanics lived in neighborhoods with Hispanic majorities, up from 39 
percent in 1990.

· The median net worth of Hispanic households is about 9 percent of that 
of non-Hispanic whites (net worth is what people own minus what they owe).

· Only about a quarter of Hispanic college students graduate compared 
with about half for non-Hispanic whites.

Assimilation takes time. The big difference between today's Hispanic 
inflows and past immigration waves is that those stopped. History or 
restrictive laws intervened. There was time for newcomers to adapt. Left 
alone, there's no obvious reason why the present Hispanic immigration 
should even pause. Today's unskilled arrivals make it harder for 
yesterday's to get ahead. The two compete. In 2004 the already-low 
median wages for foreign-born Hispanics dropped 1.6 percent, reports 
Rakesh Kochhar of the Pew Center.

There's a paradox. To make immigration succeed, we need to curb some 
immigration. That's why it's vital to control our border. It also 
explains why it's important not to "solve" that problem merely by 
legalizing these huge inflows. Unfortunately, the legislation being 
considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee would do precisely that. 
Among other things, it would create a virtually open-ended guest worker 
program.

If we control new inflows, we should legalize the illegal immigrants 
already here. Many have American-born children, who are U.S. citizens. 
It is not desirable or ethical to force most illegal immigrants to 
leave. Yes, they broke the law, but we were complicit by making the law 
so easy to break. Their present shadowy status deprives them of rights 
and exposes them to exploitation. We should want the melting pot to work 
-- and fear that it might come to a boil.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701202.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060308/d83664e4/attachment.htm