Chicago Tribune Editorial - Beyond border enforcement
Chicago Tribune Editorial - Beyond border enforcement
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Published May 27, 2006
Back in December, the U.S. House of Representatives launched an assault on illegal immigration with a hard-line "enforcement only" bill. This week, the Senate countered with a much broader measure that nonetheless places enforcement first. Heading into negotiations aimed at fixing our dysfunctional immigration system, lawmakers agree on at least one thing: Without better enforcement, our next law will be no better than our last.
Despite all the talk about protecting our border with Mexico, it looks like the politicians have figured out something else, too. Both bills call for greater accountability in the workplace, where illegal immigrants and the people who hire them have made a mockery of the system while the government has looked the other way.
Major immigration overhauls in 1986 and 1996 failed to slow illegal immigration because the workplace was and still is virtually unpoliced. The first law, which extended amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal workers, included a short-lived promise to crack down on employers who hired undocumented workers. The second focused on beefing up border security and speeding deportations. Yet millions of immigrants have managed to enter the country illegally since those laws were passed.
They keep coming because the promise of good jobs far outweighs the risk of being caught.
The 1986 immigration law specified a number of paper documents, including passports, Social Security cards or green cards, that employers could accept as proof that a worker was legal. But those documents proved easy to counterfeit. Employers weren't responsible for ensuring the documents were valid, and the feds had neither the will nor the resources to check for violators. Employers were off the hook.
Both Senate and House bills would address that problem by requiring employers to check applicants' immigration status against an electronic screening system administered by the Department of Homeland Security. Employers would be notified within three days if an applicant wasn't authorized to work here.
Both houses also favor substantially higher fines and even jail time for employers who hire illegal immigrants.
Targeting the border at the expense of the workplace was never a good trade-off. Though about half of undocumented immigrants arrived here by crossing the border illegally, most of the rest entered the country on temporary visas and didn't leave when they were supposed to.
A million Border Patrol agents, standing shoulder to shoulder along the entire length of the 2,000-mile border, will not solve our immigration problem as long as there are jobs waiting for anyone who can flash a fake ID.
Enforcement might begin at the border, but it can't end there.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Published May 27, 2006
Back in December, the U.S. House of Representatives launched an assault on illegal immigration with a hard-line "enforcement only" bill. This week, the Senate countered with a much broader measure that nonetheless places enforcement first. Heading into negotiations aimed at fixing our dysfunctional immigration system, lawmakers agree on at least one thing: Without better enforcement, our next law will be no better than our last.
Despite all the talk about protecting our border with Mexico, it looks like the politicians have figured out something else, too. Both bills call for greater accountability in the workplace, where illegal immigrants and the people who hire them have made a mockery of the system while the government has looked the other way.
Major immigration overhauls in 1986 and 1996 failed to slow illegal immigration because the workplace was and still is virtually unpoliced. The first law, which extended amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal workers, included a short-lived promise to crack down on employers who hired undocumented workers. The second focused on beefing up border security and speeding deportations. Yet millions of immigrants have managed to enter the country illegally since those laws were passed.
They keep coming because the promise of good jobs far outweighs the risk of being caught.
The 1986 immigration law specified a number of paper documents, including passports, Social Security cards or green cards, that employers could accept as proof that a worker was legal. But those documents proved easy to counterfeit. Employers weren't responsible for ensuring the documents were valid, and the feds had neither the will nor the resources to check for violators. Employers were off the hook.
Both Senate and House bills would address that problem by requiring employers to check applicants' immigration status against an electronic screening system administered by the Department of Homeland Security. Employers would be notified within three days if an applicant wasn't authorized to work here.
Both houses also favor substantially higher fines and even jail time for employers who hire illegal immigrants.
Targeting the border at the expense of the workplace was never a good trade-off. Though about half of undocumented immigrants arrived here by crossing the border illegally, most of the rest entered the country on temporary visas and didn't leave when they were supposed to.
A million Border Patrol agents, standing shoulder to shoulder along the entire length of the 2,000-mile border, will not solve our immigration problem as long as there are jobs waiting for anyone who can flash a fake ID.
Enforcement might begin at the border, but it can't end there.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 7:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home