Legalization Program for Undocumented Workers

¶ … Legalization Program for Undocumented Workers Would be Bad for the U.S.

Why a Legalization Program for Undocumented Workers Would be Bad for the United States

Benjamin Franklin, never at a loss for the pithy comment, once said, "these immigrants are the most stupid in the nation. Few of their children speak English, and through their indiscretion or ours, or both, great disorders may one day arise among us." (Masel 155)

Now, Franklin was referrings to another facet of immigration, but the last part of his statement has proven true. Today, "great disorders" have arisen among us concerning the issues of immigration, illegal immigration, undocumented workers, amnesty, "legalization," and temporary workers. Never as much as now, we are a nation divided, in particular, over the issue of amnesty or legalization for illegal and undocumented immigrants. It would seem half the nation favors some sort of amnesty for those "illegals" already residing in the U.S., now estimated at about ten to fifteen million people. And the other half of us can not swallow the idea that the ones who broke the law getting here and staying here, would be rewarded for it. It is the latter group we will discuss in this paper -- those who think that a legalization program for undocumented workers in this country is a bad idea and would be bad for the country.

It's important to delineate between amnesty and legalization, though many think they are one and the same, since both involve forgiveness of the fact that these immigrants entered the country illegally and would not be expelled under either program, but rather rewarded by a place in line to become a legal citizen.

That being said, amnesty is defined as the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals. (Merriam-Webster Online) the amnesty program President Reagan offerred in 1986 was amnesty; more on that later.

Legalization is defined as giving validity or legal sanction to something. And legal means conforming to or permitted by law or established rules, according to Webster's Online Dictionary. So, in the case of a legalization program for undocumented workers, it would indicate a process by which they could be given legal validity to remain in the U.S. It is this definiton that raises the hair on the back of the necks of its opponents.

Let's keep in mind also that this anti-legalization belief that there is little or no difference between the two terms comes from the opinion that if an immigrant is in this country because he broke the law to get in, then anything short of deportation or a jail term or both is amnesty. Therefore, a legalization program equals amnesty. It is an opinion held by many.

Reward for Criminal Behavior?

Why?" ask those who oppose any program of amnesty or legalization for illegal immigrants. "When did we start rewarding people who perform illegal acts in this country?"

Whether its total amnesty with no fines, penalties, or "going to the back of the line," or some form of amnesty that includes a legalization program, much of the opposition comes from people who sincerely question whether that's the direction this country wants to go.

The argument here is not that a legalization program in itself is bad and wrong for the country. It is the offer of such a program, which serves as an open invitation to all immigrants to come to America and take advantage of this largesse of amnesty-driven legalization. The results of that massive influx of illegal aliens is an overwhelming of the legalization programs themselves and part of American culture and society in general.

After listening to the argument from those in favor of legalization or amnesty who say there are just too many illegals, and their children, in this country to even consider jailing or deporting them, opponents ask "so what?" To them, it goes beyond practicality to the bigger concept of justice for all. If we say that, because of their numbers, we'll just slap them on the hand, and forget about it, are we not condoning criminal behavior? The answer, they say, (League of United Latin American Citizens) is yes. And then where, eventually, does this "OK" for breaking the law stop? It is not good either for society because of the presence of a large population living outside the legal structures or the migrant, who is subjected to abuse, exploitation, and death in the desert.

Once breaking the law gets to be okay, it is hard to construct any program that can function. "Guest-worker" programs and legalization proposals boast many detailed new rules. But if we won't enforce existing rules, how will we enforce the new ones? The government tell us, "This time we really mean it." But until we start enforcing our laws, any new plan must remain equally meaningless. Legalization programs depend on lots of rules...rules our government will not enforce just as they do not enforce immigration laws today. (Moseley)

New Flood

Today's illegal aliens will be joined by millions more tomorrow. Usually, rewarding trespassers for climbing through our windows will invite more trespassers who want some of the action. (Moseley)

Border agents already are reporting a surge of traffic at the borders. Based on the outcome of the last amnesty, under President Reagan in 1986, the Center of Immigration Studies (CIS) predicts that with the passage of some type of amnesty/legalization/guest worker bill from Congress, they expect approximately ten million illegal aliens will receive "amnesty." (Camarota)

As in 1986, they predict that one-fourth (2.6 million) will obtain amnesty fraudulently. In addition, a bill of this sort would allow an estimated 4.5 million family members of illegal aliens to join their legalized relatives -- a total of 14.4 million beneficiaries. CIS comments that these figures do not include the increase in future legal immigration, which may double or triple to one million per year. (Camarota)

And this flood of illegals will overwhelm the system.

The Risks of Mass Immigration

There is a downside to importing workers who are mainly poorly educated with few or no skills, according to Daniel Stein, director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Stein adds, "All we're doing is importing a huge pool of cheap labor, which helps employers but keeps wages low for Americans," he says. (Masel 158) This "importation" or rush of illegal aliens into the U.S. with the promise of citizenship through legalization will impact American workers for years. No immigration bill so far indicates an immediate "upgrade" to U.S. citizenship, so that low-paid illegal immigrant worker is going to take the job of a citizen for a period of time, because he or she is willing to accept less pay and fewer benefits.

Instead of using incoming illegals to fill vacancies, we should be focusing on training the unemployed here," says the Center for Immigration Studies' Mark Krikorian. "If we lost immigration as a source of workers, employers would seek to increase the labor pool by increasing wages," he says. "They would also look to communities with higher unemployment rates -- more marginal elements of the population -- like those on public assistance, ex-convicts or the handicapped." The point is that the work will get done. We don't need the carrot of legalization, which will attract millions more illegals to join in on the giveaway.

Immigration causes American workers to lose $133 billion in wage depression and job loss to foreign workers annually, according to Professor George Borjas of Harvard University. Legalization of illegals or a guestworker program would increase competition for American jobs and put downward pressure on wages, especially for the least skilled American workers.

League of United Latin American Citizens)

Other Considerations

Opponents of illegal immigration and of amnesty for those illegals already here, say that they are an economic drain on this country. They pay no taxes yet enjoy some of the benefits of living in the United States. They don't contribute much to the economy because they are "poorly educated people who take low-skilled jobs for little money," says Stein, who opposes high immigration levels. (Masel 155) and, says Stein, the newcomers take Americans' jobs and suppress wage levels.

Immigration opponents also reject the idea that immigrants are willing to do jobs that most Americans won't do. Not true. Krikorian says that in parts of the country with few immigrants, low-wage jobs still get done, and by native-born people.

Employers could find Americans to do these jobs if they wanted to, but they would have to provide training and raise wages to do so," says Krikorian. Immigrants are simply an easier and cheaper alternative for business, according to him. (Masel 155)

In and of itself, legalization does not represent a comprehensive solution to the many problems faced by immigrants. Ultimately, it must be coupled with economic policies that encourage and fund sustainable development and permit working people to earn a living wage in their home countries - as well as an authentic commitment to demilitarization and the peaceful resolution of internal and international conflicts.

I can think of few things that could be more dangerous for homeland security than granting amnesty to 8 to 12 million illegal aliens," said Rep Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., an outspoken critic of legalization. "Perhaps the administration ought to dedicate more energy to enforcing our existing immigration laws and less on finding ways to allow millions to skirt them," Tancredo added. (Stern and Kammer) legalization program on the scale Tom Ridge, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, suggested would overwhelm his already overburdened department," said Krikorian. (Stern and Kammer)

Principles on Legalization

According to the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), there are key elements that must go along with a legalization program in order for it to be acceptable.

Sacrificing the future wages, labor protections, and working conditions of both U.S. And future foreign workers in order to achieve legalization is too high a price," says a LULAC spokesperson. (League of United Latin American Citizens) They state very clearly that legalization should not be obtained at the cost of future inequities.

We are deeply concerned that many members of Congress will soon conclude that those demanding legalization will willingly accept any and all changes to, or expansion of, foreign worker programs as the price for achieving the long sought goal of legalization," they add. In addition they point out that most recent bills introduced in the U.S. Congress are significanly flawed in that they do not contain the necessary elements to make them acceptable such as the following. (League of United Latin American Citizens) it is important to know the major infrastructure of the programs being tossed about so that the proper decision may be made. It is certainly an argument against legalization if the elements are not there, and with many proposed programs so far, that has been the case.

Labor Market Tests. A method of identifying real labor market needs. In other words, there must be an established, legitimate process for making a determination that foreign workers are needed for any particular situation, or American workers do it.

Wages and Benefits. There must be a method for determining the minimum wages to be paid to foreign workers. it's insufficient and indeed, catastrophic for U.S. workers if the only requirement is that employers will observe the law regarding wages. U.S. workers would see their wages and benefits reduced as foreign workers come in willing to work at minimum wage, without benefits.

Labor Protections and Enforcement of Them. The right to organize. Protections have to go beyond minimum wage and must include protection from sexual harassment, discrimination, workmen's compensation, health and safe laws, and the ability for these workers to accrue benefits under Social Security.

Further, it is necessary that protections afforded to foreign workers must be enforceable. If we are not going to create incentives for the employer to higher the foreign worker, unless truly needed, then we should not make the rights and the ability to enforce those rights available to foreign workers any different from those available to U.S. domestic workers.