YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC March 26, 2006
EDITORIAL Immigration reform debate should be civil — and productive As discussion begins again Monday on the volatile subject of reforming the nation's immigration laws, President Bush is urging Congress to have a "civil debate" on a variety of proposals being floated in the days ahead. Reform talk basically centers on three areas: a "guest worker" program that allows foreign workers in the country temporarily, but legally; tightening border security via more border patrol agents; and tougher employer sanctions for hiring illegal immigrants. Actually, programs associated with all three areas are in effect now. But they aren't working to the extent necessary to control a flood of illegal immigration. Congress has approved legislation to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the next five years. Funding them will be another challenge. According to the Houston Chronicle last month, Bush's 2006 budget proposal would only fund 210 new agents. Some even advocate totally sealing the southern border to control illegal immigration from Mexico — perhaps even to the extreme of walling it off. Employer sanctions were part of earlier reform efforts. What's being discussed now is making them even more punitive, as proposed in a House-passed measure and another being proposed by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. Frist's bill doesn't address temporary work permits, but it would tighten borders, punish employers who hire illegal immigrants and provide more visas. One of the problems with making employers more liable for immigration control is that they can only go so far under civil rights restraints in questioning someone and it's common knowledge that false identification is a cottage industry. Just because the worker can flash documents doesn't mean they're valid. And guest workers? Whether temporary work visas or the federal government's controversial H-2A program, clearly a broader, more workable approach is necessary. Bush has long promoted a guest worker program that essentially allows workers into this country for a specified time and then sends them home when their work here is done. That begs the larger issue of getting immigrants not only into the work force legally, but on a track to legal residency, and perhaps citizenship. We continue to support the concept of AgJobs, twin measures stalled in Congress that would provide a stable, legal agricultural work force. (Use S.359 or H.R.884 if you want to track them on the Internet.) It is the product of negotiated agreement between the Washington Growers League and United Farmworkers Union, among others, and addresses both guest workers and legal residency. AgJobs essentially has two parts: * An orderly process for legal residency over time. This critical component provides temporary legal status for those working in agriculture and a procedure to gain permanent legal residency status. * The H-2A temporary visa program for agriculture, which would be reformed to make it easier, faster and less expensive for agricultural employers to use. It would still require protections in such areas as housing, workers compensation insurance and wages for foreign workers recruited and employed under the program. Elements of the AgJobs legislation could find their way into a compromise immigration reform measure sought by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa. The current H-2A program may get more attention this year as Central Washington growers are nervous about an adequate labor supply. That is one vehicle now available and certainly there must be a plan and accountability attached to any importing of workers. We don't want a repeat of 1987, when agriculture workers were lured to the state by advertising campaigns that held out the prospect of plenty of jobs. As it turned out, warm weather, sunburned apples and other factors made that an empty promise and many workers were stranded here with no money to get back home, or even live on while they were here. Community and state resources were marshaled to meet the need. We don't expect a sweeping, all-in-one piece of legislation out of this Congress. What we would like to see is approval of some meaningful steps that can be continued in the future toward comprehensive reform. Any time an "all or nothing" approach is tried in a legislative body, the end result is usually nothing. We found that out in this state with farm worker housing. Competing factions finally agreed it was better to have approved temporary shelter, with proper amenities, during cherry harvest than no shelter at all. So, let the immigration reform debate begin once again Monday. It's OK to keep it civil, but we'll continue to hold out for productive.
|