In American politics, the party with a plan gets to frame the debate, no matter how good the plan actually is. The Democrats over the past several years, for example, staged a huge campaign for a massive job-killing bill to “fix” our broken healthcare system. There are many good reasons why this plan would do more harm than good, and a good fight was put up against it. But because the Republicans largely failed to offer a substantiative alternative – because the debate was framed as “Obamacare or status quo” – Democrats were able to push the bill through anyway.
The same is true of Arizona’s controversial immigration reform laws. Proponents portray it not as a sweeping reform, but as necessary legislation, taking action where the federal government won’t. And just like the healthcare bill, supporters are trying to set up a dichotomy between Arizona and Status Quo.
But there is a third way, as conservative Utah is showing in its new immigration legislation. Interestingly enough, its recent series of immigration bills have drawn comparisons both to Arizona’s law, and to Ronald Reagan’s 1986 reform, which at first glance might seem to swing in opposite directions. Utah’s bills take certain key features of both:
- They ramp up criminal enforcement. Following Arizona’s law, police are required to “check the immigration status of anyone arrested on a felony or a serious misdemeanor charge”. It deftly avoids the profiling charge against the Arizona law by not leaving the check to the discretion of the police. Both Arizona and Utah’s laws make it clear that there is no right to come to this country and commit crimes.
- They provide a legal framework for employment. Those immigrants who are employed, are living in the state, and have no criminal background, may apply for a two year work permit. Though it is not a pathway to citizenship as Reagan’s bill was, it encourages productive labor, rather than indigence, crime, and dependence on government social programs.
- They don’t flout the federal government. Where Arizona’s bill set it on a collision course with the federal government and left itself open to court challenges, Utah’s bills engage the federal government. Its lawmakers are seeking to establish a model reform program for other states, and to preempt legal challenges by “giv[ing] the governor until 2013 to negotiate with federal immigration authorities”.
A majority of North Carolina voters recognize that our current system is broken and would support the Arizona law over the status quo. Yet fully a third oppose it. Utah’s law, by taking the essentials of Arizona’s law but including some business-friendly elements and other language, will hopefully serve to broaden the debate much-needed immigration reform. As North Carolina mulls its own reform, it’s good to see a substantiative third option presented.
North Carolina is already a magnet for illegals. We have unemployment over 9% The counties with the highest unemployment are the Eastern counties where most of the illegals are. The Arizona style law combined with requiring all employers to use E-Verify and workplace audits would reduce the population of illegals in our state. This would open up jobs for people here legally. It is a myth that illegals take jobs Americans would not take. Every time there is a work place raid, Americans fill those jobs in a matter of days. We do not want to become a magnet for illegals. We need to get them to deport themselves because they can’t find work. If we ever get to where we have a labor shortage, I am sure we can get some temporary work permits issued to allow workers to come to NC for one year maximum.
Getting the illegals out of the state also is better for the Hispanic community. When everyone stops thinking that every Hispanic is illegal, their lives are better. They don’t get harassed. The are able to work and carry on their lives in peace.
Or – novel thought – we could not harass illegals either! How about letting everyone work and carry on their lives in peace, and treating them like human beings?
As for your “myth”, the preponderance of evidence is that illegals do not harm, but rather benefit, American workers. For example, the more expensive you make labor in America, the more tempting it makes outsourcing. Deporting people doesn’t save jobs for Americans; it destroys them, and on top of that it destroys lives.
While a clever name, Bergeron’s argument is false. The idea that allowing a select few to break the law and hire illegals under the guise of “reducing labor costs”, while others cannot is unethical. The issue in thie case is the minimum wage, not the illegals.
Bergeron, if you feel that there is an issue with wages in America, you should go to the source, much like your character would suggest. Illegal immigrants hurt American consumers more than the benefits they provide.
You are assuming that lower wage costs brought about by illegal employees will some how lower costs to consumers, which is not the case. This form of price competition does not exist in any market structure because the playing field is not equal. Producers that follow the rules will be unable to lower prices to the extent of cheaters, so cheaters will have no incentive to lower their prices drastically, meaning the consumer will be helped breifly, if at all.
Yes, minimum wage laws are a source. Not the source. Immigration restrictions and minimum wage laws, not to mention protectionism, labor unionism, and a myriad of other regulations, have exactly the same effect on the labor market: raising the price of the cheapest labor, and doing so at the expense of those workers.
Why do people all of a sudden become legal positivists when immigration comes up? If you want to change minimum wage laws, why can’t we change immigration laws? How about Obamacare? Do states and doctors have an ethical obligation to be quiescent to its mandates? Why one and not the other? Is it ever ethical to challenge an unjust law? Would you want to live in a society where it wasn’t? The “breaking the law” argument is nothing but a red herring.
And finally, your hypothetical is irrelevant. No one is advocating for amnesty and then closing the borders. If we reform our laws to stop punishing honest employers, then there won’t be “cheaters”. So yes, the savings will be passed on to the consumer.