REJECT THE CURRENT IMMIGRATION AGREEMENT

The New York Times has an editorial today on the recent immigration deal arrived at in the Senate that has Bush's approval.

I fully agree with the NYT's position:

"It is the nation’s duty to welcome immigrants, to treat them decently and give them the opportunity to assimilate. But if it does so according to the outlines of the deal being debated this week, the change will come at too high a price: The radical repudiation of generations of immigration policy, the weakening of families and the creation of a system of modern peonage within our borders."

However, I must be even more pessimistic about the current agreement. I think it is unworkable because it contains a requirement that heads of households engage in a "touchback," i.e., returning to their countries of origin and making official application there for permanent residency. The New York Times calls this provision "foolish." I believe hardly any head of household will do this, because 1) it will separate them from their families for at least a year, maybe two or three, in the process of waiting for their applications to be processed; and 2) people will be afraid that once they leave the U.S., the law will change and they will never be allowed back.

The New York Times talks about the "awful" rules on temporary workers:

"The agreement fails most dismally in its temporary worker program. “Temporary means temporary” has been a Republican mantra, motivated by the thinly disguised impulse to limit the number of workers, Latinos mostly, doing the jobs Americans find most distasteful. The deal calls for the creation of a new underclass that could work for two years at a time, six at the most, but never put down roots. Immigrants who come here under that system — who play by its rules, work hard and gain promotions, respect and job skills — should be allowed to stay if they wish. But this deal closes the door. It offers a way in but no way up, a shameful repudiation of American tradition that will encourage exploitation — and more illegal immigration."

This agreement will spawn a permanent class of subsistence laborers who will work only in dead-end jobs and have no economic security or hope to better their lives. To say that a worker may work for only two years and then either go back or apply for another period of two years, with a maximum of six, is wrong and will create huge social upheaval for the laborers. What does a worker do after his term of six years in the United States has been used up? I doubt that such workers will want to go back permanently to their home countries. They will stay in the U.S. one way or other.

This is a bad immigration package. The Congress should reject it or change it. Bush is so eager for anything which will cause his "legacy" to look good that he will sign any immigration bill. But apart from preventing Bush any credit, the terms are on balance anti-immigrant. Congress should let this one go, and wait till the country has a Democratic president in the White House who will take a more principled stand than Bush in protecting immigrant rights.