Bureaucracy Bursting Immigration Reform

Well, Representative Scott Garrett has found an illegal immigration bill he likes enough to sign a discharge petition to force a floor vote without it going through the committee process. The reason process is important is because sometimes you get a bill with some REALLY bad provisions.

I took the time to read Rep. Shuler's HR 4088, and here are a few things I noticed right off the bat:

In a loophole big enough to float Noah's Ark through, individuals seeking to skirt the law could either use an established religious institution or create one, and bring in as many "missionaries" as they wanted without fear of prosecution. All they have to do is show their missionary has been part of the church for a year. As long as they aren't paid, there is no limitation on what the "missionaries" could do once here.

My guess is there would likely be lots of new churches, mosques and temples "helping" their neighbor with home construction, landscaping, car washes, and tons of other "fundraisers" to support their "mission"; which may provide them housing, food, clothing, etc. Indentured servitude, anyone? [Title I Subtitle E. Sec. 141 (b)(1)(C)(5)(2)(C) or page 37];

Foreign companies are able to win contracts to run the programs and Congress doesn't need to be notified until 60 days after they start working, and there's no guarantee they have to hire Americans to perform their tasks. [Title I Sec. 112(b)(1)];

Any employer who has an employee with a problem with their Social Security number will have to terminate employees 10 business days after the employer is notified of the issue if it is not resolved. I know people who have been trying for years to fix such problems, but there is no provision for continued employment if the process has begun but is unresolved. [Title II Subpart A Sec. 202(a)];

There were at least 7.6 million people working two jobs in January of this year, all of which would have to either go to a social security office or electronically submit their paystubs to the government to prove they really are having to work two jobs. Apparently, this has to be done before any of their payments into the system are credited. Get a different part time job, back to the Social Security office.

The passport backlog was blamed on a surge of roughly 8 million applicants. Somehow, I doubt Social Security will have much more success in dealing with a crush of people roughly the same size just when more baby boomers are set to retire. [Title II Subpart A Sec. 202(b)];

Another thing I noticed, while the bill appropriates $200 million to the Department of Homeland Security for new equipment, there is no appropriation to Social Security for the increased work load. It seems to be a bit of a blank check.

I'm surprised Garrett would want to fight for a bill that has an open ended funding commitment and would explode the size of several bureaucracies within Washington. He's not usually the type to be so hot and bothered to pick a fight on a bill that spends money we don't have and grows the size of government exponentially.

It's not that the bill doesn't have some very common sense approaches to dealing with illegal immigration that should be considered. It's just sometimes the process is there for a reason, and the reasons listed above are just a few examples of what's wrong with this bill.

Immigration: So Now What?

With the death of the immigration bill, most people are left with a simple question: So now what? The plight of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in our nation is a very real situation, and this bill tried to do too much at one time and everybody on the fringes got so mad it really isn't a surprise it failed. Now that the Bill is dead, pundits say nothing significant is going to be done until 2009. Unfortunately, we now have 4% of our nation's real population left in limbo. Their status may not be legal, but it doesn't change the fact that they're here.

There was a tremendous amount of disappointment from our Senator Bob Menendez, a champion of the reform. Our Representative Scott Garrett loved this outcome, and seems to believe any reform must punish the undocumented. The Economist had an accurate take on the stance taken by him and many other Republicans.

That most Republicans would be against reform was a given: although a handful of them helped to craft the bill, most Republican legislators, and the bulk of Republican voters, saw it as an “amnesty” for those who broke the law by sneaking into the country. They were not persuaded by yet more promises to fix the border. Nor, however, did they propose any alternative measures for dealing with the people already working in America.

For many Republicans, it seems, this is a good issue for them to rally the base and raise money; a solution is not as beneficial to them as the problem existing. It's estimated that in the 1990's, the number of illegal immigrants increased a net amount of 500,000 a year (incoming; less deaths, returns, legalization, etc.). With the INS's estimate of 7 million illegals here in 2000, and an estimate of 12 million illegals being reported last year, the net increased to over 800,000 a year while the Republicans held a grip on Washington.

By the end of 2009, that means we're looking at roughly 14.5 million people. We were already talking about a population larger than that of New Jersey and Connecticut combined; we might as well throw on New Hampshire while the politicians in Washington twiddle their thumbs and raise campaign cash.

So what do we do?

With an estimated price tag of $41 billion a year, a mass deportation program (finding, jailing, deporting) is off of nearly everyone's table, except for people like Garrett (how else do you punish an illegal alien?).

Relying on the Feds to come up with some sort of meaningful ID system seems dicey. There's already a 3 million passport backlog they're dealing with; coming up with 12 million more IDs seems unlikely.

Building the "fence" is a giant waste of taxpayer money, that does little more than let Congress say "Look, we built a fence. We're doing something." Meanwhile, people will go around and under the boondoggle.

Going after the employer seems to make sense, but with so many people working for so many different places, it seems unlikely enforcement will be effective.

So what do we do?

The 14th Amendment might have a clue:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

States already must provide equal protection of the law to anyone within their borders; would the States be within their rights to grant residency to illegals if they choose?

Granted, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution vests the power to come up with a uniform law of naturalization to Congress. However, I'm not talking about citizenship or a path to citizenship, I'm talking about non-transferable residency. There isn't anything in the Constitution that says States couldn't determine residency, at which point the Tenth Amendment defers to the State. After all, the States seem to be the ones who benefit and suffer the most from the presence of the undocumented.

On the positive side, States receive sales tax from the individual (if it applies), income tax from those they buy things from, and taxes from those who employ them. On the negative, States pick up the tab to fund schools, medical care and social services for the undocumented. So wouldn't it make sense to let places like Texas, California, and New Jersey craft a workable solution for ourselves? It could go either way, throw them out or let them stay, but at least there would be something.

There are more questions than answers with this issue, but while Washington is in a state of self-inflicted paralysis over immigration, why not give the States a shot? Communities have started taking their own steps anyway, ranging from housing crackdowns to creating worker centers, what would the States do? On many policy issues States have been the experiment lab, where a Federal policy is then crafted on their best practices, so why not now?

At the very least, it would make for one heck of a Supreme Court case.

Garrett and the Immigration Bill

Update: I stand corrected. Someone sent me an e-mail pointing to Garrett's campaign website, where he does mention the unfairness to legal immigrants in the last paragraph of his position statement. His quote and vote against the Voting Rights Act, as well as other observations, still stand.

While reading Representative Scott Garrett's statement about the immigration compromise being unfair to legal immigrants; the fact that this was the same Representative Scott Garrett who said he only looked after citizens born in the US while defending his vote against the Voting Rights Act just reeked of spin. Here's part of what he said:

I hear from constituents nearly every day who are legal residents or naturalized citizens who bought into American notions of rule of law, equality, and justice. They’re the first to sense the extraordinary unfairness of amnesty and they’ll be the first to experience that unfairness as well.

Garrett's "unfairness" posturing is pure politics. In January, he was "law and order; anti-amnesty" Garrett, only now he's conveniently thrown in the concerns of legal immigrants who he would deny the right to vote. It wasn't until after his true feelings about legal immigrants were published in the Express-Times that he's repositioned his stance.

It's pretty safe to say that Garrett has no interest in immigration reform, short of attempting to deport 12 million people and building a giant wall. After all, Garrett refused to stand and applaud with most Republicans during the State of the Union address when President Bush challenged Congress to deliver immigration reform.

I haven't read the bill, but the fact that Garrett is calling it amnesty and Senator Bob Menendez is saying it's too hard; it seems to me like the truth is somewhere in the middle. Probably the most honest, if not colorful, conversation I've seen about it happened on the McLaughlin Group on Sunday. It's worth a read, simply because both sides agreed that parts of the plan are completely unenforceable. When Tony Blankley (staunch conservative) and Eleanor Clift (staunch liberal) are in complete agreement for the same reasons, it's worth noting.