Everyone seems to hate America’s latest stab at immigration reform, which went before the full Senate this week. Immigrant groups think it offers little hope to low-skilled, mostly Hispanic would-be migrants. Right-wingers snarl that it is nothing but an "amnesty" for illegals. Companies, who it had been hoped would support the new compromise, hate it because it imposes bureaucratic burdens on employers. And the left is complaining because it fears it will depress low-end wages. It would be nice to be able to report that opposition across so full a spectrum is a sign that the bill is a well-crafted compromise. In fact, it may well tom out to be doomed.
That would be a pity, because there are some good things in the proposal. Most important, it produces a reasonably fair solution to the problem of what to do about the 12 minion or so illegal immigrants already in America, most of them working hard at low-paid and disagreeable jobs. Deporting a population the size of Ohio’s is impossible, economically illiterate and morally wrong. The new bill would make the 12 million legal, and offer them a path, though a winding one, to full citizenship.
The right doesn’t like this, of course, and points out that amnesties (which this really isn’t, given the fines and hurdles involved) have in the past drawn fresh waves of migrants. So the other side of the bargain gives conservatives everything they could wish for in terms of razor-wired fences, surveillance drones, armed border guards and a programme that will force companies to check the legality of their workers. Such measures are probably necessary to win support and rebuild trust in the immigration system. No bill would pass without them.
The bad part of the deal is what happens to would-be immigrants once all those sensors and spy-planes are in place. The bill proposes a dual system. A guest-worker programme would allow 400,000 people a year to enter the country to work for two years, after which they must go home for a year, with a six-year cap on the total time they can spend in America. The other part is a new method of granting residence permits, carrying the right to work. Such "green cards" currently go mostly to relatives of American citizens or to people sponsored by an employer. The bill would bring in a "points" system for 380,000 people a year, similar to those in use in Canada and Australia. Permits for family members would be restricted, to cover only spouses and young children. Employers would have less ability to sponsor the people they need.
There are several problems. One is that extended families help build vibrant communities in a way that guest workers don’t. Second, the government should not be in the business of telling companies whom they ought to him. There are ways round this, such as awarding points not for specific jobs, but still the problem is that most of the green cards will be used up by Indian software designers, Bosnian engineers or the similarly blessed. America does indeed need such folk, but it also needs legions of the less-skilled, too.
That will continue to mean a large, poorly paid and constantly rotating alien underclass with little stake in American society. On May 23rd, the Senate voted to scale the guest worker programme back to 200,000. So the illegals will keep coming—except that now their journey will be still more dangerous and they will be even further beyond the law. The current bill is better than nothing; but unless it is improved, it will not solve the main problem of the illegals. The social reaction towards the immigration reform includes the following EXCEPT that ______.