Guest Worker Program at Heart of Immigration Fight

GWEN IFILL:

An estimated 12 million immigrants live in the United States illegally. Some argue their presence places a strain on schools and other public services; others say they are essential components of a successful U.S. economy. But all seem to agree that the status quo is not working.

The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would focus on enforcement, including 700 miles of physical barriers along the Mexican border.

In the Senate, where committee debate is in its second week, lawmakers are considering a number of proposals. Senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy would allow undocumented workers to remain in the country for six years as guest workers then apply for permanent residency. President Bush supports that approach.

Senators John Cornyn and Jon Kyl propose creating temporary two-year visas for workers. After two years, they'd be forced to leave the country, with the option of returning later.

And Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, in search of middle ground, would create a gold card that would grant workers legal residency, as long as they remain employed.

Will any of these pass political muster? For that, we turn to Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports tighter controls on illegal immigration; and Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, an advocacy group for Hispanics in the United States.

So what is at the root? Janet Murguia, I'll start with you. What is at the root of all of these different approaches?

JANET MURGUIA:

I think at the root of all of it is: How do we deal practically, sensibly with the 12 million undocumented people that are here? And I think that seems to be the sticking point for a lot of folks. And I think we can come up with some rational, practical ways that we can deal with that problem. We think the McCain-Kennedy approach provides the best, most balanced approach.

We recognize that there has to be an enforcement component to any comprehensive immigration reform bill, but we think that there needs to be included in that an opportunity for some of these workers to be able to remain, if they've met the appropriate requirements. We feel that's a more balanced approach.

GWEN IFILL:

Steven Camarota, what do you think is at the root of this debate?

STEVEN CAMAROTA:

Well, I think there's a general sense among the public and even policymakers that we have failed to take even the most elemental steps necessary to reduce illegal immigration.

Last year, only four employers were fined for hiring illegal aliens. There are more New York City transit cops than there are Border Patrol agents on duty at any one time. The IRS lets at least 500,000 people use Social Security numbers of all zeroes in the United States.

And I think what the House has done is recognized we need to start with enforcing the law first. So what they've done is focus on the border, going after the employers who hire illegals.

And what they say is, look, let's demonstrate that we're going to enforce the law first, and then we'll think about what we want to do about, if we want to have a guest worker program or what have you. And I think that's the approach that probably makes the most sense.

GWEN IFILL:

If enforcement is the approach that makes the most sense, aren't there already laws on the books which ought to be able to be enforced?

STEVEN CAMAROTA:

Yes, absolutely. Partly at the behest of the business community and ethnic advocacy groups and others, the law just isn't enforced. As I said, only four employers were fined in 2004 for knowingly hiring illegal aliens.

Now, that represents a choice; this is not the weather; this is not something outside of our control. The fact that we have so few Border Patrol agents, the fact that it's easy to slip in, the fact that people overstay their temporary visas in the United States, these all represent choices.

And I think what the House is saying is, to the administration and to the public, we're going to try to enforce the law first. We're going to add resources. We're going to penalize employers. And I think that that kind of demonstration can then move the debate forward and then decide what we want to do next.

GWEN IFILL:

Janet Murguia, why not just increase enforcement, keep people from coming in? That seems like it would be at least a first step.

JANET MURGUIA:

Well, it's a step, but it doesn't have to be the only step and it doesn't have to be exclusively the first step. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

We ought to be able to take a step that would enhance enforcement, but it doesn't mean that we can't acknowledge that we have a real issue here in the fact that these undocumented workers are working right now. They're contributing to the economy, and we ought to find a way that is constructive and that is realistic about facilitating their opportunity to continue to provide to the economy and support the economy in so many different ways.

It doesn't have to be an exclusive solution; we ought to have enforcement, but we ought to be able to deal with how we can allow for those workers who have been here and who are contributing in many different ways at different levels to the economy, allow them to have opportunities to continue to do that work and stay.

GWEN IFILL:

And is your ultimate goal that these people be eligible, be able to work towards citizenship?

JANET MURGUIA:

I think, for those who would like to stay and become citizens, we ought to create a path, after we've made sure that the appropriate requirements have been in place.

I know the McCain-Kennedy approach would acknowledge that these folks couldn't be at the front of the line. They'd have to go to the back of the line, and there would be a fine that they'd have to pay. They'd have to make sure that they're paying taxes and learning English.

We would make all those assurances in place, but I think, if we could put those assurances in place, make sure that those checks were made, then we ought to allow a path for citizenship.

A lot of these folks are embedded in our society already. And to think that somehow we're not going to be allowed them some opportunity to come out from under the shadows to come out and figure out a way for them to continue to do the work that they're doing seems like a missed opportunity to leverage those workers and the contributions that they're making.

GWEN IFILL:

Steven Camarota, does that mean if you're allowing, facilitating, allowing people to come out of the shadows, that you're actually granting amnesty to people who broke the law?

STEVEN CAMAROTA:

Well, of course, obviously. We're saying you don't have to go home. We're not going to enforce the law; we're going to change the law to accommodate you.

Not only is that a slap in the face to everyone who's waited their turn to come to the United States, but we tried this before. In 1986, we gave out nearly 3 million green cards to illegal aliens. And the promise was, well, from then on, we'd enforce the law.

We didn't enforce the law. The illegal aliens all got their green cards. We also actually increased legal immigration thereafter. About twice as many legal immigrants come in now than at the start of the 1980s, but we now have twice as many or three times as many illegal aliens.

Those who want to legalize illegal aliens, the burden is on them. We have to show first that we are serious about enforcing the law. And then, if you want to move to another debate about granting amnesty to illegal aliens, then we can think about that.

But the bottom line is: We have to show that we are serious. We have to convey to the public, restore confidence. The public doesn't believe the administration right now, because they know the statistics. No one's being fined for hiring illegals.

So I think that is the important first step. And that's basically what the House bill says.

GWEN IFILL:

Anyone who's been following this debate…

JANET MURGUIA:

No, the House bill — just to be clear — the House bill is an enforcement-only approach, and it really doesn't deal with the 11 million who are here. I mean, it deals with them by saying, basically, they are going to be rounded up, and taken, and deported to their countries of origin.

We want to deal with practical and reasonable solutions, and we ought to find some accommodation where we allow folks to be — if we need to have punitive measures to deal with folks who have been here, nobody is talking amnesty. And I want to be really clear about that.

There are punitive measures that we can deal with. They can show that they're demonstrating on a number of levels that they're contributing to the economy, paying taxes, learning English, and they don't go to the front of the line. There's a big difference.

And on the House side, people would have you believe that, by dealing with the enforcement-only solution, that we're taking care of the problem. You can't halfway take care of the problem; we need a comprehensive solution. That's why the president has talked about a guest worker program.

GWEN IFILL:

But let me stop both of you for a moment, because it seems — anyone who has been following this issue, it feels like we've been having this argument for years. What is different? Or is there anything different about the debate that's happening now in the Senate and the one that was just concluded in the House about where we would end up? What's different?

STEVEN CAMAROTA:

Well, I think that one difference was that the president did start talking about this a couple of years ago and did begin focusing on the issue, and I think that raised its profile.

I think the public has always been outraged, simply extremely distressed, by the fact that we're not doing anything to enforce our laws. And that's always in the background. And then when the president started talking about it, I think that outrage came to the foyer.

GWEN IFILL:

But the way the president — excuse me — but the way the president is talking about that is not winning him friends in his own party.

STEVEN CAMAROTA:

No. Obviously, most Americans want the law enforced, but most interest groups, whether they be ethnic advocacy groups, or business groups, or union groups, or church groups, they're not so friendly to enforcement and they want the illegal aliens legalized in one way or another.

And that bitter divide is reflected, actually, in the Senate, reflects mostly the interest groups, and the House represents mostly the American people.

GWEN IFILL:

Janet, weigh in.

JANET MURGUIA:

There's a lot of differences. First, we're in a post-9/11 world, and we need to be, you know, recognizing that security and enforcement have to be a part of this.

But I think the mistake is to recognize that we've poured millions and millions of dollars into the walls at the border and into security and to other mechanisms. We need to continue to invest in technology that's going to help us at the border.

JANET MURGUIA:

But the difference has to be that we're dealing with this in a realistic way that allows for enforcement, but allows for us to deal with these 11 million undocumented folks who are working. They're not just sitting around here and looking to sort of just gain benefits; we want to make sure that people recognize they're making contributions every day.

And to not recognize that, and recognize that many of them have been here for years, and that we have to have some accommodation. It's got to be both enforcement and an opportunity for citizenship for those who have been making key, important contributions, sustaining this economy.

And the business community knows this more than anybody else. And they understand that, if we were to try to do something that would literally displace these workers, take them back to their countries of origin, we would really stifle our economy in a big way.

GWEN IFILL:

A little nuts-and-bolts reality check. In addition to the three proposals we've talked about, we also have Senator Frist saying he wants a March 27th deadline to get this legislation to the floor, whether it comes out of committee or not, some version of this legislation to the floor, which some people have said guarantees that it won't become law this year. What do you think?

STEVEN CAMAROTA:

Well, I mean, what Specter, and McCain, and Kennedy want to do is increase the number of green cards, create a massive new guest worker program, and legalize all the illegal aliens. The House wants a comprehensive enforcement-first approach.

Even if they do pass their bill in the Senate, reconciling that with the House version is going to be very difficult, so it's not clear that they're going to be able to do so in conference.

GWEN IFILL:

And even if they did, is it politically palatable anywhere?

JANET MURGUIA:

Well, I mean, I think there's some posturing going on here, and perhaps it's to give incentives for a bill to break out of committee, but, you know, I would just argue that an enforcement-first bill is an enforcement-only bill, if you're looking at this.

And that is not realistic; it's not practical, in terms of dealing with this on a comprehensive way. We need to be able to tackle this issue in a way where we're really dealing with all of the problems and give practical solutions.

But I don't think the solutions we're hearing on the other side necessarily understand that, if you're going to deal with those 11 to 12 million folks, we need to have an opportunity to work, integrate them into a comprehensive reform.

STEVEN CAMAROTA:

Well, I think it would be a terrible mistake to sort of think we have this false choice. Either we have to deport everybody tomorrow or, because we can't do that, we have to legalize everyone.

There is a middle way, and I think it's the House way. It's attrition through enforcement. We make life more difficult for illegal aliens here, and we significantly reduce the number of illegal aliens coming in, and many more will self-deport. We think 150,000 to 200,000 illegal aliens go home on their own each year; the goal is to make a whole lot more do just that.

GWEN IFILL:

Well, that will have to be the last word. I'm so sorry.

JANET MURGUIA:

The false choice is whether we should have enforcement or open borders. That's the false choice, and we need to reject that.

GWEN IFILL:

It won't be the last time we have this debate. Janet Murguia, Steven Camarota, thank you both very much.

STEVEN CAMAROTA:

Thank you.

JANET MURGUIA:

Thanks.