Such authority already exists. Prior to 9-11, I represented a worker who did just that and become legal. Back then, the legacy INS was just getting its strides in enforcing the law against illegal hiring of unauthorized workers. That all changed rapidly when the agencies were incorporated into the new Department of Homeland Security and enforcement priorities changed.

Posted at March 23, 2006 7:27 PM in response to Borderline Insanity: The Democrats Commit Suicide Over Immigration

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that there is only a finite number of jobs that are available. Under the present scheme, 11 million people who are unlawfully here form the bulk of an existing 2-tier employment system and are subject to being exploited. If the argument is against creating a 2-tier employment system, strict physical control of the border without more would be tantamount to closing the barn door after the horses have fled.

Allowing those already here (excluding those who have committed crimes) to come out of the darkness with an offer of earned legalization consisting of a penalty for their past transgressions, payment of taxes (past and current), civics assimilation, and continued, but now authorized employment, should have the effect of forcing those who currently employ them to meet ordinary labor law standards as they apply to wages and safety.

I suspect that the guest worker program is in reality a red herring. If comprehensive immigration reform includes an earned legalization component, the legalized 11 million will fill the existing need for unskilled labor and the demand will dry up. The need for guest workers will be minimal, and with an enlarged labor force, the job magnet will disappear.

In addition, earned legalization would have the effect of adding a large number of relatively long-term workers to the labor pool at just the same time that the baby boomers retire.

Finally, there will be substantial homeland security benefits from having most of those now underground out in the open and registered. 

Posted at March 23, 2006 7:21 PM in response to Borderline Insanity: The Democrats Commit Suicide Over Immigration

I agree with Senator Reid that GW Bush is the worst. 

It's ironic that his first 2 initials coincide with those of the man I think is the greatest president. George Washington's greatness came from his understanding that the Constitution contemplated limited federal powers and both structural and political checks and balances. He worked with Congress and let most policy come from the citizen legislators. He set the standard for the citizen president and provided the example to follow in avoiding an imperial executive. Measured in these terms, no other president has come close to Bush's dynamic drive for an expansion of presidential power that not only conflicts with legislation but probably with the constitution itself. This administration's numerous manipulation of the Justice Department in obtaining bizarre, un-American opinions on such varied topics as sanctioned torture and executive immunity from violating the 4th amendment demonstrate a tyrannical indifference to what this nation is really all about.

Posted at March 20, 2006 5:46 PM in response to He's Not the Worst President?

I agree with you - the real issue is process, not substance.

If in fact adequate review took place and DWP meets the standards for operating the ports, letting a Middle East firm do the job would have great merit. My reasons for saying this are:

1. As someone else mentioned, DWP self-interest would encourage it to do whatever it could to avoid interference with its doing the job - I daresay speculate that it might likely get wind of impending harm a little sooner that our current intelligence might

2. The inherent "fairness" that we Americans constantly tout would be apparent in more than just platitudes - this is particularly important in a context where we are outsourcing the management instead of the labor

3. Granting the contract to a UAE company would go very far in convincing many in the Middle East that we truly intend to work with them in a "globalized" world.

Unfortunately, the uproar is seemingly focused on the nationality of the successful bidding company, not on the review irregulaties. I suspect that if the review is questioned and ends up being conducted properly, DWP would still have a chance at getting the award.

Too bad that those with loud voices that oft are heeded aren't calling for a look at the review process and urging  that it be re-done if it was faulty.

Posted at February 22, 2006 4:25 PM in response to Breaking News: Corporations Found Running Ports!

Posted at November 3, 2005 11:01 PM in response to Secret CIA Prisons: Preemptive Strike or Surprise Attack?

I apologize for my tongue-in-cheek comments below, for I agree with you 1000%. Still, I find it very hopeful that now, only 54 some years after we opened our doors to people of color, we have so much to show from those who have come and assimilated. Some of the snark comments below humorously reflect the good that has come out of immigrant-citizens. Others snidely deride citizens who have failed in their responsibilites.

Your wish list.

A willingness to serve one's country and community through military or civilian service. Like the casualty list in Iraq?

An acceptance of the rule of law governing the behavior of the powerful as well as the powerless. Like Oliver North?

A demand for high ethical standards in public life, as exemplified by our country's Founders. I didn't know Carl Rove was an immigrant!

A willingness not only to pay legally required taxes, but to contribute one's fair share based on wealth. Have you looked at the election laws lately? How about George Soros?

A desire to create jobs and wealth in this country as opposed to elsewhere when there's a real choice. Been to Korea town lately?

A tangible stake in the health, welfare and education of one's fellow citizens, regardless of their race, religion, economic class, or national origin, and without respect to one's own personal
interests. Attend a school board meeting lately?

An openness to the views of political or cultural minorities, and a commitment to their rights. Dont you just love attending Persian Festivals?

A personal sense of compassion for every American suffering from physical or mental illness, poverty, discrimination, or any other disability. My good friend Dr. Ruth and her crusade for healthy sexuality?

A recognition of the good fortune that has provided most Americans with prosperity and peace, and an acknowledgment of the good character and personal worth of many people here and abroad who are less fortunate. Wow, a tough one - deep.

Above all: an understanding that citizenship is a privilege that comes with responsibilties, not a ticket to isolated self-fulfillment. Amen

Posted at August 18, 2005 9:01 PM in response to Wouldn't It Be Nice?

I tend to agree with you with one modification.

Historical levels of immigration were driven by our nation's needs. As we industrialized, we needed workers and we made immigration relatively easy (at least for whites), keeping out only those with contagious diseases, criminals, and terrorists.

Methinks that the main problem today is that we are sticking to "historical" levels when we really need to project what our true needs are. As the boomers retire, business will need replacements, the boomers will need a larger pool of service workers, and the nation as a whole will need increased tax revenue, not only for the general cost of running the country but to funds the boomers entitlement programs.

Posted at August 18, 2005 7:57 PM in response to The Border is the Color Line of the 21st Century

Our immigration laws are so complex and have been compiled by so much historical xenophobia in a patchwork of what was politically popular at the time that only one conclusion can be reached - our immigration policy is broken.

Our preference allocation of visa numbers for unskilled workers (the jobs that allegedly are not desired, nor filled by U.S. workers) is limited to 10,000 per year while 130,000 visa numbers are available for jobs where U.S. workers compete. Worse, these numbers include family members so that if an average family of 4 is assumed, that means that only 2500 unskilled workers and 40,000 "skilled" or higher qualified workers can come in. One would think that if we think we need a total of 140,000 workers, our laws would not count their families. No wonder employers looked to nonimmigrant categories like H1B to bring workers in. Of course, now these temporary worker categories also are severely limited. Although the federal fiscal  year 2006 does not start until October 1st, all 60,000 visas for next fiscal year have been used up.

There is virtually no way for an employer to obtain a legal worker in a timeframe that is business-friendly. No wonder employers are willing to break the law. The law, as it exists, is an ass.

Even worse, despite the Department of labor having identified  occupations where there is a critical shortage of workers (nurses and physical therapists) the quota system in place keeps employers from obtaining them. One would think that if an occupation has been designated as being critically short of workers, our immigration policy would have a mechanism for exempting critically needed workers from the quota, at least until the shortage has been addressed.

From a purely natural law perspective, our immigration laws operate to deny a human being the right to work by making it illegal, both civilly and criminally, for an employer to hire someone who does not have an employment authorization. From a moral perspective, our family based immigration laws encourage non-marital unions because marriage will either terminate the right to immigrate to join one's parents, or, if the parents become U.S. citizens, drastically lengthen the waiting period. Some countries have a 26 year waiting list!

I tend to agree that the border is the new color line. How else can we explain immigration laws that limit immigration at a time when the working population (the baby boomers) are set to retire from the work force. We should be welcoming new workers to replace us as we retire, not only to keep the employers we now work for in business, but to ensure a more stable workforce supporting our social security system.

Indeed, given record federal budget deficits, increasing tax collections would seem to be in order. Instead, we discourage 11 million people from filing taxes. This is one of the reasons the McCain temporary proposal makes a lot of sense to me - it requires payment of back taxes. And future regularization depends upon continuing compliance with our tax laws.

I guess that my bottom line is that if we look at immigration as something that  those who want to come here do instead of immigration as something that fills needs that we clearly have, we will alway use the border as a barricade instead of a welcoming banner. We who were built by those who came here responding to the words on the Statute of Liberty -

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Emma Lazarus

Posted at August 18, 2005 7:47 PM in response to The Border is the Color Line of the 21st Century