As noted in his publication by the columnist of the newspaper "Russian Advertising", Mrs. Muñoz did not utter the word amnesty, although it seemed to hang in the air. It is clear that the president's representative did not want to provoke the right-wing camp, for whom the word amnesty is like a red rag to a bull. But if we cast aside all conventions and directly ask the developers of immigration reform: do you, gentlemen, believe that amnesty will help solve the problem of illegal immigration? We are unlikely to hear a clear, unambiguous answer.
In turn, critics of the proposed immigration reform will not fail to point to the experience of 1986, when President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) - a document that allowed 3 million illegal immigrants to stay in the United States and later obtain American citizenship. This gesture of goodwill did not solve the problem of illegal immigration, meaning a new amnesty will lead to nothing good: new illegal immigrants will replace the old ones.
In light of the upcoming discussion, the viewpoint of Jason Riley, a well-known expert on immigration policy and a member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, is quite interesting. He outlined his vision of the problem in an article titled “Obama and the ‘Trap’ of Amnesty.”
Riley agrees with critics of the proposed reform that the 1986 law did not solve the problem of illegal immigration. However, he writes, such a goal could not be achieved. 23 years ago, Congress and the White House decided to limit themselves to amnesty, failing to answer the main question: what should be done to ensure that foreigners seeking to enter the United States do not violate immigration laws?
According to statistics, which are unlikely to be precise, 400,000 people enter the United States illegally each year. Most of them, Riley believes, have no intention of obtaining American citizenship; for them, the main thing is work. Meanwhile, the annual quota for low-skilled workers does not exceed 5,000 people. Increase it several times, perfect the so-called guest-worker program - American businessmen will only thank you, and illegal border crossings will significantly decrease.
The developers of IRCA, the expert believes, did not take into account the constant need of domestic entrepreneurs for millions of foreign workers. That was their fundamental mistake. The American economy during President Reagan's second term continued to develop rapidly, attracting millions of foreigners. Unable to come to work legally, these people, like their predecessors, again started using loopholes. At the same time, American authorities turned a blind eye to how American businessmen violated the law by hiring illegal immigrants.
Riley is not a liberal, and it would be strange to see a liberal on the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. Meanwhile, in his article, he sharply criticizes opponents of immigration reform, accusing some popular radio and TV hosts, congressmen, and senators of political hysteria, speculating on the term “amnesty.” These people, he says, use this slogan to block any attempts to cut the “Gordian knot” of illegal immigration.
According to Riley, there is no point in focusing exclusively on the current illegal population of the United States, which is already largely absorbed by the American economic and social system. Many illegal immigrants are married to American citizens, work, have purchased property, and their children have received American education. Obviously, it is utopian to expel 12 million people from the country. Therefore, the main task of reformers should be to create a legal framework for the lawful stay in the United States of people wishing to come to the country as workers. So that they do not have to repeat the experience of their predecessors.
Unfortunately, Riley laments, President Obama will find it very difficult to steer immigration reform along this path. American labor unions, represented by the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, have already stated that they do not support the idea of a large-scale guest-worker program and existing temporary employment programs for foreigners. Democrats and human rights activists, who view immigration reform not from an economic but from a humanitarian perspective, will likely support the unions.
Meanwhile, the experience of previous years has shown that programs to attract foreign labor indeed sharply reduced the illegal flow. The most famous example is the Bracero program, under which hundreds of thousands of Mexicans were invited for agricultural work in the United States from 1942 to 1964. According to official data, thanks to this initiative, illegal immigration to the United States decreased by 95% between the second half of the 1940s and the second half of the 1950s! However, under pressure from unions, it was gradually phased out. Alas, there was no one to replace the Mexicans, and instead of legal workers, illegal immigrants streamed into the United States, gladly accepted by American entrepreneurs.
“I am not calling,” writes Riley, “for reviving the Bracero program, although its successful experience deserves the closest attention. Nor do I claim that a guest-worker program will solve the problem of illegal presence in the country. However, encouraging legal immigration would actually help reduce, and significantly, the number of illegal immigrants.”
Of course, Riley’s proposal, especially during one of the worst recessions in the country’s history with its high unemployment, will provoke justified skepticism. But it is no secret that where illegal immigrants work, “native” Americans are rarely seen. At the same time, according to economist Richard Vedder, the largest influx of immigrants to the United States coincided with periods of the lowest unemployment and high economic growth.
Personally, I find the presented concept quite interesting. Granting amnesty to 12 million people will most likely have to happen. And then act as Rilli advises. As I see it, there is no other choice. Anyone wishing to object is invited to the conversation...