The Obama Administration just cannot make the New York Times editorial board happy when it comes to immigration policy. First, the Obama Administration ends the practice of detention and removal of illegal immigrants caught during work site raids. Then, the Obama Administration decides not only shouldn’t they detain and remove illegal immigrant caught during work site raids, but they should give them temporary work permits so that those illegal immigrants will cooperate with prosecutors.
Now, the Obama Administration merely lets the employer target know it is coming to do a payroll audit, which results in the employer terminating the illegal immigrants it had been employing. The result is that the illegal immigrants merely find new jobs in the same location or move to another city to find work, which only continues to undermine the job market for citizens during one of America’s worst economic job markets. According to the New York Times, such a result is “ludicrous.” The only thing ludicrous about the example cited in the New York Times editorial is the callous disregard the editorial board has for citizens.
Specifically, the New York Times cites the case of American Apparel, which is a clothing company in Los Angeles, California. As noted by the editorial, upon receiving word of the payroll audit, American Apparel let go roughly 1,800 illegal immigrants. As further noted by the editorial, American Apparel paid the illegal immigrants from $10 to $12 per hour — “well above the minimum wage and industry standards, plus health benefits.”
According to the Census Bureau, the unemployment rate in Los Angeles County as of August 2009 stood at 12.4%. I assume that America Apparel will look to fill those 1,800 jobs that had been held by illegal immigrants. At a time of such high unemployment, many citizens will be eager to get a job that pays so well and comes with health benefits. What is ludicrous about that outcome? The New York Times editorial board should be forced to face the 1,800 citizens who end up in those jobs and tell them why it is unfair that the illegal immigrants were fired from those jobs.
It is high time the New York Times editorial board got itself out of the Upper West Side of Manhattan and spent a little bit of time among the Americans who are fighting to keep their heads above water. Maybe then their sympathy will directed in the right direction.
As widely noted, President Barack Obama has comprehensive immigration reform on his 2010 legislative agenda. Given the policy changes made during his first nine months, it is clear that President Obama sees reform through the prism of perceived Hispanic votes and union payback.
First, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano changed the worksite raid policy of deporting illegal immigrants caught during raids to giving those illegals temporary work permits to cooperate with DHS. Beyond the legal weakness in buying cooperation, does anyone really believe that the illegals released with work permits will hang around and face deportation once the case is resolved? The history of the “catch and release” program — ended by President George W. Bush in 2005 — unequivocally demonstrates that illegals will move to another city or state and resume their illegal activities. By effectively ending the “detention and removal” policy, Secretary Napolitano has only put back in place one of the incentives illegals had in coming to America; namely, an all bark and no bite enforcement regime.
Next, Secretary Napolitano added onerous new requirements to the Section 287(g) program that is used by state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law. The new requirements place unnecessary handcuffs on state and local law enforcement and make the attractiveness of the Section 287(g) program far less so. Instead of having the guts to kill the program outright, the Obama Administration will kill it by removing the utility of it for state and local law enforcement. By removing another disincentive to illegal coming to America, the Obama Administration is sending a strong message to those contemplating coming here illegally that once they get across the border, they are a free as a bird.
Then, in its discussion with interested groups on immigration, the Obama Administration held a one-sided conversation with only groups who support granting amnesty to the 12 million illegals currently in America. Despite being one of the nation’s top thought leaders on the issue of immigration, no one from Heritage or any of the other groups who oppose amnesty received invites to the White House gathering. So much for bipartisanship and Obama’s alleged interest in hearing from both sides of the debate.
Finally, we now learn that the pro-illegal immigrant Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, is making it even harder for agricultural employers to use existing legal visa programs to hire workers. Secretary Solis wants to require higher pay and add additional steps for employers to show that they could not find Americans for the jobs. While we agree that American jobs should first go to Americans and those already here legally, the current policy that required employers to attest that they had searched for qualified Americans hasn’t been shown to be ineffective. Unions, not surprisingly, support these changes. Instead of reducing the avenue for legal migration, the Obama Administration should be expanding the legal avenues for those who want to come to America to work.
All of these policy changes clearly signal that immigration reform under the Obama Administration means amnesty, fewer visa users, and a return to a set of incentives that encourage those thinking of coming to America illegally to cross the border or overstay their visa. This means we will be debating whether to give the next 12 million illegals amnesty in twenty years just as we are twenty years after the 1986 amnesty. For real reform, see out report “Controlling Illegal Immigration: State and Local Government Must Do More.”