Pandering To Xenophobes

On 60 Minutes last night, the President vowed to take ownership of the health care legislation and its consequences. But he will then need to own the crippling of access to reproductive services for women. And you see a similar dynamic with the arguments over the immigration provisions in the bill. The President was not wrong when he said any bill would not insure undocumented immigrants - he's just wrong to carry out such a spiteful, shortsighted threat.

Consider a few statistics. According to a July article in the American Journal of Public Health, immigrants typically arrive in America during their prime working years and tend to be younger and healthier than the rest of the U.S. population. As a result, health-care expenditures for the average immigrant are 55 percent lower than for a native-born American citizen with similar characteristics. With the ratio of seniors to workers projected to increase by 67 percent between 2010 and 2030, it stands to reason that including the relatively healthy, relatively employable and largely uninsured illegal population in some sort of universal health-care system would be a boon rather than a burden. "Insurance in principle has to cover the average medical cost of all the people it's serving," explains Leighton Ku, a professor of health policy at George Washington University. "So if you add cheaper people to the pool, like immigrants, you reduce the average cost." More undocumented workers, in other words, means lower premiums for everyone.

The actuarial advantages don't end there. As it is now, undocumented workers (and others) who can't pay their way receive free emergency and charitable care—a service that costs those of us with health insurance an additional $1,000 per year, as Obama noted. But if illegals were covered, this hidden tax would decrease, further lowering our premiums and "relieving some of the financial burden on state and local governments," says Harold Pollack, a University of Chicago professor who specializes in poverty and public health. What's more, employers currently have a clear economic incentive to hire undocumented immigrants: they don't require coverage. A plan that mandates insurance for native workers but not their illegal counterparts actually makes life harder on the blue-collar Americans competing for jobs (and railing against immigrants) because it means that hiring them will cost more than hiring a recent transplant from Mexico City. As The Washington Post's Ezra Klein recently explained, "If you're really worried about the native-born workforce, what you want to do is minimize the differences in labor costs between different types of workers. A health care policy that enlarges those differences—that makes documented workers more expensive compared to undocumented workers—is actually worse for the documented workers."

I'd add to this that blunt enforcement mechanisms like what is used in Medicaid cost millions of dollars for almost no material benefit, which even George Stephanopoulos was inclined to point out this weekend. Such systems also tend to weed out legal US citizens without proper documentation. And not letting immigrants participate in the exchanges with their own money, as was floated by the White House over the weekend, completely cuts them off from the individual market and further strains emergency rooms, who will be the doctors of last resort, making this whole spite-based policy grossly more expensive.

(By the way, when some legal resident gets denied coverage because of immigration enforcement provisions, I fully expect Republicans to be the first in line to usher him to a press conference as proof of how government doesn't work.)

Meanwhile, Amanda Marcotte notes that the entire wasteful enterprise to make sure that some alien other never ever gets one dime of the hardworking Murcan taxpayer money ever is a totally moot point:

Mexican migrants working in the United States may soon have their own affordable health insurance program. According to Mexico’s Health Department, it is launching a pilot program designed to encourage migrants who work in the states to sign up for the Mexican government’s Seguro Popular health insurance plan.

In 2003, Mexico set out to achieve universal health care, and from what I understand, they’re on track to reach their goal of doing so by 2012. They’ve done such a remarkable job because they have---you guessed it---a public option that everyone who has a job can buy into. (Except public sector workers, who are covered by a separate insurance system.) They also have a system of federally run clinics to administer to basic health care needs, regardless of employment status. It would be this public insurance that would reach out to migrant workers in the U.S. and encourage them to buy in. Of course, covering bills incurred by Mexican citizens who go to U.S. providers will be very expensive for Mexico, especially since they’ve kept internal health care costs so low. (About 1/3 of what the same procedures cost in the U.S.) Still, it’s both the humane and fair thing for Mexico to do, because migrant workers in the U.S. are good for the Mexican economy, putting billions of dollars into their economy every year. Unfortunately, the economic crisis in America has significantly reduced the average income levels of migrant workers in the U.S., which has impacted the remittance income tremendously. So the Mexican government is starting this pilot program even as immigration is making them less money.

Mexican health care is not an optimal model for the US, but the philosophy behind it is light years beyond what our brigade of idiots in Washington can fathom. Instead, we're jumping through hoops and implementing costly verification systems when Mexican workers can sign up for their home country's public option and never touch any American system to begin with.

If the President wants to "own" these stupid and petty political compromises which benefit his opponents but make no sense from the standpoint of economics or human decency, he'd better be prepared with some good arguments about them. From what I see, naked fear of Republican extremism is leading him to act against the interests of the public.

Covering The Undocumented Is Cheaper, Actually

Rep. Joe Wilson gave a bumbling, stumbling response to his comments last night.



Once again the media has taken one sensationalistic remark and let it overshadow the entire speech last night, which was a political winner for reform. But it's worth digging down into the substance of the claims and the actual policy behind it. Right now, the way things are, undocumented immigrants (there are no illegal people) can go to an emergency room and get treatment. They can purchase their own health insurance. They can go to a free clinic. They can, in a variety of ways, access health care if they need it.

The plans on the table would provide more security for those with insurance, and provide exchanges for those without coverage. The undocumented can access those exchanges, because it would require them to pay for coverage with their own money. The bill would also provide subsidies to people who cannot afford coverage. The undocumented would not be eligible for those subsidies. It says that in every single bill draft. Rush Limbaugh, being a little more honest than usual today, says "It will cover undocumented aliens. Now it may not specifically say so in the bill... " He's talking about enforcement and verification statutes, which is a red herring, because a driver's license or some form of ID is typically required at the point of service if you have an insurance card. There are lots of checks in the system already.

That said, I agree with this:

The Baucus plan currently going around, of course, explicitly states that "[no] illegal immigrants will benefit from the health care tax credits" and limits the insurance mandate to U.S. citizens and legal residents. But Dana is right to ask whether undocumented immigrants should be covered in some capacity. Beyond potentially skewing employer hiring incentives, the exclusion of immigrants from the plan will create a financial burden on the system anyway -- which seems to be conservatives' big concern. By law, hospitals are not allowed to refuse care to anyone in an emergency situation, whether the person is insured or not. The cost of the uninsured then falls both on the hospitals and on the government, which provides $250 million annually as reimbursement through Section 1011 of the Medicare Modernization Act, which has been extended through this year.

So, tax dollars are already being spent on care for uninsured and undocumented immigrants. And hospital resources are being strained since the losses aren't fully accounted for, which can have an effect on the quality of medical care provided to the general population. Regardless of the system in place, coverage of undocumented immigrants is a problem that's going to need to be dealt with. Given that, shouldn't we be working toward a solution that's more transparent and just?

The President talked about the $1,000 hidden tax on everyone with insurance as a result of funding ER care. That would not change if immigrants had to use continue to use the ER as their primary doctor. That status quo is grossly inefficient and we all pay for it; in fact we pay more than if we just offered subsidies and brought everyone under the umbrella of universal care. In addition, having an underclass of people prone to disease without preventive care is a major public health problem.

In a general sense, this kind of "blame the brown people" argument will be consistently made until we deal fully with the undocumented within our borders, through both workplace enforcement and some legitimate path to citizenship. Until you do that, these political footballs will always surface, and cowardly Democrats will thunder "we will not pay for undocumented workers!" when we already are paying for them, and could lower that payment.

...I knew somebody would turn that into being Obama's fault.

Ending Worksite Raids

Immigration is one issue we haven't heard much about in the Obama Administration, for various reasons. But advocates have not stopped their push to take the undocumented out of the shadows and provide them a path to citizenship. The President has said little publicly on the issue since Inauguration Day, though he promised the Congressional Hispanic Caucus a statement of support in the spring. However, today's Washington Post reports on a policy shift toward punishing the businesses who hire the undocumented rather than the individual workers themselves.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has delayed a series of proposed immigration raids and other enforcement actions at U.S. workplaces in recent weeks, asking agents in her department to apply more scrutiny to the selection and investigation of targets as well as the timing of raids, federal officials said.

A senior department official said the delays signal a pending change in whom agents at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement choose to prosecute -- increasing the focus on businesses and executives instead of ordinary workers.

"ICE is now scrutinizing these cases more thoroughly to ensure that [targets] are being taken down when they should be taken down, and that the employer is being targeted and the surveillance and the investigation is being done how it should be done," said the official, discussing Napolitano's views about sensitive law enforcement matters on the condition of anonymity.

"There will be a change in policy, but in the interim, you've got to scrutinize the cases coming up," the senior DHS official said, noting Napolitano's expectations as a former federal prosecutor and state attorney general.

Worksite raids, particularly as they were used in the Bush Administration, were unnecessarily harsh, separated families and in some cases violated due process and other civil liberties. The employers are just as responsible for breaking the law, yet during the Bush years they were almost never charged. This shift in operations at DHS and ICE not only makes sense on a moral and ethical level, but is likely to be more successful in deterring companies from hiring and exploiting undocumented labor.

I know immigration isn't a front-burner issue right now, but there are better priorities than the government operating like commandos and taking workers away from their families, and the only way to truly solve the problem is through comprehensive reform.

Zombies Still Afoot

I think we have to be somewhat careful characterizing actions by federal agencies as actions by "the Obama Administration" at this point, unless they are carried out by the cabinet secretaries themselves. We are only a month into their tenure, and not nearly enough of the decision-makers from the past regime have been winnowed out. A case in point is the ICE raid in Bellingham, Washington this week.

After federal agents raided Yamato Engine Specialists Ltd. and detained 28 employees Tuesday, Feb. 24, company officials expressed dismay about how U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers handled the matter.

"They arrived in force," said Asiff Dhanani, a co-owner of the company at 2020 E. Bakerview Road. "They surrounded the whole perimeter."

Most of the workers detained were taken off in handcuffs, Dhanani said, except for three women who apparently were processed and released because they had children in local schools or daycare centers. The 28 made up about one-third of the engine remanufacturing company's production force.

"Some of these guys have been with us a long time," Dhanani said, adding that at least two of the workers detained Tuesday had been cleared by an earlier federal immigration audit that began in 2005 and was competed in 2006.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was on Capitol Hill yesterday, and was questioned about this in a hearing, and she claimed she didn't know about it until after the fact:

Workplace raids involving the arrests of hundreds of illegal immigrants at a time became almost routine in the last years of the Bush administration, but Napolitano's response to Tuesday's raid at a Bellingham, Wash., manufacturing plant highlighted the Obama administration's much different approach to a hot-button issue.

Napolitano told lawmakers during a hearing in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday that she did not know about the raid before it happened and was briefed on it early Wednesday morning. She has asked U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which arrested 28 illegal immigrants in the raid, for answers.

"I want to get to the bottom of this as well," she said. She said work-site enforcement needs to be focused on the employers.

This doesn't appear to be the policy of the Administration. But it takes some time to filter that down to the local level of enforcement agents. If this is still happening next year, I wouldn't be so lenient. But at this point, I'm willing to understand that there is going to be some lag as the new Administration comes in.

OR-Sen: Smith Freaks Out

Gordon Smith had a problem last week. Jeff Merkley's campaign released an internal poll showing him with a small lead, and there was a stirring controversy over his frozen foods plant hiring illegal workers. So, he decided to charge that his opponent is soft on rape.

In Smith's despicable ad, he enlists Tiffany Edens, a well-known rape victim in Oregon, "to appear in an emotional TV ad" that falsely accuses Merkley of "failing to crack down on serious sex offenders."

Here is the ad Gordon Smith approves:

Tiffany Edens is seen speaking on camera: "I was just 13 when he broke into our house, attacked and raped me. Later he confessed to raping eight others. But Oregon's time limits for prosecuting the rapes ran out. Jeff Merkley voted against changing that law. That's why I'm speaking out. Jeff Merkley, you should have voted to protect women, not rapists."

You won't be surprised to learn that the charge is false. But often, this kind of campaigning works.

The facts: Edens and Smith campaign officials acknowledge that Merkley's vote on the bill in 2005 had no impact on the Gillmore case, which was prosecuted many years before. The ad could leave voters believing it could affect the Gillmore case. Edens said she hoped toughening the law would help protect potential future victims.

Merkley spokesman Matt Canter says Merkley supported lengthening the statute of limitations for rape and several other serious crimes, and he pointed to his vote in favor of another bill -- House Bill 2015 -- that would have done exactly that. Canter said Merkley voted against the measure cited in the Smith ad -- HB 2316 -- as a protest against the "backroom deals" made by legislative leaders at the end of the session to determine which bills would go forward. At the time, Merkley headed the Democratic caucus, which was in the minority, and he was excluded from the negotiations. Canter says Merkley voted against the bill knowing it had enough votes to pass.

Merkley's returned fire with an ad calling out the lies, but of course, he's not a trusted source.

There's not much difference between political election season and Somalia. No rules, no laws, no arbiters.

The California Report

I have a focus on California politics, as you may know. Here are some links that I've picked up along the way this week:

• Assemblymember and former Banking Committee Chair Ted Lieu had a good piece yesterday on the foreclosure crisis and how continuing a laissez-faire attitude toward a deregulated lending industry is a recipe for even more disaster. AB 1830 is the vehicle to crack down on irresponsible lenders and ban risky loans.

• Steve Wiegand writes about the circuitous route the Governor has taken this year, first toward fiscal austerity, then toward revenue enhancement, and everywhere in between. Schwarzenegger is completely squeezed, knowing his legacy and reputation is on the line and at his wit's end over how to bridge the chasm between Republican intransigence and a way forward for California.

• The California Labor Fed has released its endorsements for legislative races. Not a lot of surprises here, nor a lot of variance from the CDP endorsements, although Carole Migden and Bob Blumenfield didn't see their endorsements vacated on the convention floor. The Labor Fed can endorse multiple candidates in one race, which allows them to wiggle out of some of the more contested primaries (in AD-14 they actually had a TRIPLE endorsement). The Labor Fed does bring member education, and in some cases money and volunteers, so it's not a little thing.

• Wired's Autopia looks at LA's future in mobility. In a word, I would call the report frustrating. It's basically going to take forever until the city truly has the transit system it deserves; right now, just 7% of the city uses mass transit.

• Mayor Villaraigosa takes a strong stand against ICE raids.

"I am concerned that ICE enforcement actions are creating an impression that this region is somehow less hospitable to these critical businesses than other regions," Villaraigosa wrote in a March 27 letter to Michael Chertoff, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security [...]

In his letter, Villaraigosa said ICE has targeted "established, responsible employers" in industries that have a "significant reliance on workforces that include undocumented immigrants."

"In these industries, including most areas of manufacturing, even the most scrupulous and responsible employers have no choice but to rely on workers whose documentation, while facially valid, may raise questions about their lawful presence," he wrote. He said ICE should spend its limited resources targeting employers who exploit wage and hour laws.

"At a time when we are facing an economic downturn and gang violence at epidemic levels, the federal government should focus its resources on deporting criminal gang members rather than targeting legitimate businesses," said Matt Szabo, the mayor's spokesman.

In general I agree with worksite rules enforcement, but the issue does seem to be out of proportion and balance. It's selective.

• This is a really interesting and refreshingly honest article by Brad Plumer on the SEIU/UHW situation.

Wait, Come Back, We Love Your Tacos and Piñatas!

Seeing the potential for a generational decline at the polls due to alienating the fastest-growing demographic in the country, the GOP candidates abruptly changed their tune and agreed to participate in a Spanish-language debate held by Univision in December. After spurning minority voter forums repeatedly, they suddenly came around. Simon Rosenberg thinks he knows why. Republicans in Virginia based their entire appeal on stopping illegal immigration and LOST, big-time, this week, relinquishing the State Senate to Democrats and giving up four seats in the House of Delegates. Suddenly, immigration issues don't look like electoral gold for Republicans anymore. They never should have, but now there's tangible evidence that it's a short-term loser, as well as a long-term bit of electoral poison.

The GOP's decision to go to Miami next month is a good one for the country. Let us hope it signals a new era for the Republican Party, one that ends both their demonization of immigrants and their strategy of blocking all common sense immigration reform legislation. In 2006 it was the House Republicans who blocked the big immigration reform package. In 2007 it was the Senate Republicans. Perhaps their admission of defeat will allow a new era where the two parties can come together and design a new 21st century immigration system that reflects the strong values of our great nation and meets the needs of the changing modern American economy.

I think there's still a major split within the Republican Party about how to proceed, or whether they've gone so far out-demagoguing one another that their base will not allow them to return to a position besides demonization. Whatever the case, the December debate should be interesting, for purposes of chronicling flip-floppery.

UPDATE: I guess I'm a racist, because I don't see much of a problem with this on the merits.

Two ardent proponents of border security are teaming up to introduce a bipartisan bill aimed at curtailing illegal immigration through employer sanctions.

Reps. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), who were both elected after strongly criticizing President Bush’s approach to immigration reform, are unveiling a bill Tuesday that has already attracted the support of dozens of members.

“It’s the one [immigration] bill that will pass this Congress,” said Bilbray in an interview. “We have to make this about illegal employment and crack down on employers.”

The Secure America with Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act focuses on three areas: employment enforcement, interior enforcement and increased border security.

I think the focus on border security (I think at least three border strengthening bills have already passed) is nonsense, but workplace enforcement is sensible and crucial to anyone who cares about American jobs. I agree that there are nativist concerns in this bill, and I would couple it with a massive entrepreneurial aid package for Mexico for them to build jobs at home. But overall, workplace enforcement is not an ignoble goal.

George Bush: Proudly Enforcing the Laws After 6 1/2 Years

Suddenly the President's a workplace enforcer.

The administration unveiled a series of tough border control and employer enforcement measures designed to make up for security provisions that failed when Congress rejected a broad rewrite of the nation’s immigration laws in June.

The package revealed Friday has 26 elements, and the administration announcement said they "represent steps the Administration can take within the boundaries of existing law to secure our borders more effectively, improve interior and worksite enforcement, streamline existing guest worker programs, improve the current immigration system, and help new immigrants assimilate into American culture.

The border enforcement stuff is nothing new, and will simply increase the number of tourists overstaying visas. But the workplace enforcement rules, most of them already on the books, represent a new focus:

Employers will face tough new scrutiny and requirements. “There are now 29 categories of documents that employers must accept to establish identity and work eligibility among their workers,” the summary says. “The Department of Homeland Security will reduce that number and weed out the most insecure.”

“The Department of Homeland Security will raise the civil fines imposed on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants by approximately 25 percent,” the summary continues. “The administration will continue its aggressive expansion of criminal investigations against employers who knowingly hire large numbers of illegal aliens.”

You could have done so much of this without changing any of these laws. What Steve Soto said.

It’s a valid question why after seven years the Bush Administration is just now:

1. Forcing employers to fire employees who use false Social Security numbers;

2. Fully implementing a 1996 law on an exit-control system;

3. Forcing employers to comply with a 1986 law requiring eligibility verification from job applicants;

4. Stepping up the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrant street gang members;

5. Using federal agents across the country to hunt down “alien fugitives;”

6. Expanding its training of local law enforcement on immigration laws.

Why do I get the feeling that this tough talk will not be backed up with action?

Slaying The Beast

Well, the Republicans killed the immigration bill dead. I fail to see how it helps them strategically, but their brown-hating base was whipped up in a fervor so there was little they could do. Meanwhile, I wasn't particularly fond of a lot of aspects of the bill, and am not particularly sad to see it go. In 2009, there will be a better opportunity with more and better Democrats to get a better bill. If I were running the Democratic Party I would put forward a bill demanding stronger workplace enforcement, including felony jail time for businessmen who knowingly hire and exploit undocumented workers. If we cannot bring these hardworking people out of the shadows, we should at a minimum protect them from this kind of exploitation. And I believe populist Republicans can agree to that; we've seen "enforce the laws on the books" in their rhetoric. The other effect this will have is to further widen the rift between the corporate Cons who want cheap labor and the anti-immigrant base.

Ultimately, doing nothing is irresponsible, and "sealing the border" is a stupid bumper sticker that is irrelevant to the problem (a majority of "illegal aliens" overstay tourist visas). So if you are really committed to this issue, you will jail anyone who hires someone in the country illegally. That includes the guy mowing your lawn and putting up your drywall. Somehow, I think we'll find a lot of brown-hating hypocrites that way. Let's play hardball.

Can We Do Anything?

The Senate refused to close debate on the immigration bill today, after an encouraging vote to sunset the now-reduced guest worker program after five years passed late last night. At this point, it's questionable whether this gets to a conference committee at all, where it could get better. The pressure is on the President to have a legacy, so I think that the Democrats could easily make the bill more progressive in conference and not risk a veto. But I don't know if they can find 60 to close debate.

A central problem in this country is that the conservative base (and to a smaller extent the liberal one) has become so amped up about every little vote, thinking that it will bring about the end of civilization itself (which Tom Tancredo actually said in Tuesday's debate), that any kind of compromise just doesn't seem possible anymore. In this sense, Barack Obama's theme of unification is appealing, though I'm not sure it will be bought by the right.

We're talking about immigration here. It's already a problem that's unlikely to be fixed simply by shutting the border down; most people who are in this country illegally did so by overstaying visas. So the alternatives are continue this underground economy and shadow America, or actually try to do something about it. The process of earned legalization seems appropriately arduous, certainly more so than the 1986 amnesty by St. Ronnie. I'm very skeptical about that the workplace enforcement aspects of the bill will actually be, you know, enforced, but a new President with a shred of respect for the rule of law is likely to do so. The relief for agricultural workers who literally can't find anyone to work the fields makes sense. The guest worker program is indentured servitude and I'm glad that the Democrats are chipping away at it.

The conservatives are acting like passing this bill will lead to the end of the world. That's exactly what Lindsay Graham is responding to even while he attacks Obama. He's mad that his party has left reason behind in favor of demonization and fearmongering. Well, tough. You have a responsibility for that as much as anyone, Huckleberry. We have to understand that putting up a brick wall and acting like every tiny issue is as important as, say, Iraq, is counter-productive, and it's why so many of us feel that you simply can't get anything done through Congress anymore. No less than Trent Lott made this point the other day. Hopefully, the post-Bush era can be defined by ramping down the rhetoric. Of course, the Republicans, who started this pie fight and continue to play the fear card at every opportunity, are going to have to take the first step. I'm not hopeful.

The Immigration Bill

The right is literally going insane over the immigration bill. The Freepers want to impeach the President over it, and those are the ones that don't want to string him up. John Hawking of Right Wing News will personally see to the destruction of ant Republican Senator that votes for it. Hey John, that's our job!

I suppose this means that I should line up on the other side and support the bill, but I'm just not feeling it. This is a classic "Washington compromise" where everything every politician ever thought about immigration is thrown into the bill, making it unworkable at the least and illogical at best. When the David Broders of the world pine for the days when everybody can set down and work together on issues, this is frequently the result. And it's not a universal good.

The fees are so high and the timeline so long that I don't think any illegal immigrant who even wanted to come out of the shadows and earn legalization could reasonably do so. And yet it's still amnesty anyway, so the right is rhetorically setting themselves on fire about it anyway. I think Stephen of the Thinkery, pinch-hitting for Ezra Klein, puts it best.

The idea that people should pay fines when taking advantage of an amnesty shows that this bill is really about one party that desperately wants to hold onto and expand its slim Congressional majority and another party that desperately wants to prevent that from happening. The members of each party are now free to campaign about the victories they achieved in the immigration bill, Democrats trumpeting the amnesty which will add millions of workers ripe for unionization and an expanded tax base for popular programs like Social Security and Medicare. The Republicans will simultaneously show off the thousands of new border patrol agents that will be added, the fences, vehicle obstacles, new technology, and the fines that these miscreants will all pay as penalty for breaking the law of the land.

Of course, the fines will stand as a strong disincentive for people to participate, which will deprive politicians of both parties their victory speeches. A $2,500 initial fee for participating is pretty steep for a group of people who came to the US in order to make enough money so their families back in their countries of origin can eat.

The other great point that Stephen makes is comparing this effort to the War on Drugs. Instead of going after demand, we go after supply. So we criminalize the people who are trying to help their families. Why aren't we criminializing the employer? If it's "too hard" to go after all the employers who hire illegal immigrants then it's too hard to go after the immigrants themselves. And the difference is that the employers are in regular contact with local, state and federal governments in the form of taxes. I guess the employers will need to verify Social Security numbers now. No, we REALLY mean it this time. What about the large, off-the-books, underground economy? Why not institute tough sanctions for employers, even ones that reward illegal immigrants with a Green Card for turning in the employer? Within weeks the whole system would dry up, if employers saw their new hires as opportunists. And without the cooperation of illegals in any criminal undertaking against the employers, they'd skate. So the Green Card is a kind of witness protection program. Those who are truly far gone on the right would go apeshit (you're rewarding criminal behavior!), but over time it's the only workable system. Protecting the border will do precisely nothing. Most illegals that come here now do so by overstaying the tourist visa, and it you made the border impenetrable, more would do the same; all you would do is eliminate the coyote industry.

This bill is pretty bad and I haven't even gotten to the guest worker program, for which the word "indentured" and "servitude" come to mind. Apparently the thinking is that this is the last chance for a long time to get any kind of change in immigration policy from the status quo. If so, I hope the Democrats can work the hell out of this thing in conference. Otherwise, some compromises turn into such mush that passing them is effectively irrelevant. This is one of those times.

Immigration Deal

There's a live press conference going on right now on a bipartisan deal on immigration reform. John McCain won't be speaking, but he's in the background, and I've never seen someone look so uncomfortable. You'd think that he'd step out of camera range. This may be the end of his nomination run, because anyone stepping forward and saying that we should take 12 million people out of the shadows and begin to deal with them in a comprehensive way for them to earn legalization will be a persona non grata in the "hate-the-brown" GOP.

Here are some details of the plan:

The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so-called "point system" that would for the first time prioritize immigrants' education and skill-level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.

The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and — after paying fees and a $5,000 fine and returning to their home countries — ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years.

They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and a high-tech worker identification program were completed.

A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated.

I would think that the President will push extremely hard for this, in an effort to cement some kind of legacy and mount a comeback - which is not going to happen, but that will be the working theory. In truth this will probably hurt Bush among conservatives and send his poll numbers lower. As for the plan itself, well, they're trying to split the atom with this thing. Ultimately, enforcing the workplace would work in two seconds, but there's this fiction that immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do. Not true - they do the jobs Americans won't do AT THAT PRICE. And my real concern is how many protections those immigrants and citizens-in-waiting would be entitled to in those 8 to 13 years. Would they be eligible for the minimum wage? Would they get Social Security?

I don't think a lot of immigrants have $5,000 to pay in fines, so I don't know how this is much more than a feel-good measure. I believe in a comprehensive solution, but there will still be a multi-tiered economy under this system, unless workplace enforcement is made more stringent.

UPDATE: Incidentally, the right is going batshit crazy over this. They're calling it a "GOP cave". Their thoughts on this issue make them appear to be living in one.

Hack Joke Made Manifest

There's been a minor comedy world brouhaha between Joe Rogan and Carlos Mencia over Mencia's propensity to steal jokes. In particular, Mencia appeared to have stolen a joke from Ari Shaffir about the building of the border fence with Mexico, with the punchline "The President wants to build a fence on the border. Who's going to build it?" Hundreds of people have done that joke, but Mencia lifted it with the exact same language.

As I've said 200,000 times before, satire is dead.

Two executives at a company that once helped build a fence to keep illegal immigrants from crossing the Mexican border were sentenced Wednesday to six months of home confinement for hiring undocumented workers.

Mel Kay, founder, chairman and president of Golden State Fence Co., and manager Michael McLaughlin had pleaded guilty in federal court to knowingly hiring illegal aliens. U.S. District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz ordered each to serve 1,040 hours of community service and spend three years on probation.

Kay, 64, was fined $200,000 as part of a plea agreement, and McLaughlin, 42, agreed to pay $100,000.

Federal prosecutors took the rare step of seeking prison time after the men acknowledged hiring at least 10 illegal immigrants in 2004 and 2005. The charges carried a maximum possible penalty of five years in prison.

However, prosecutors were unable to find a previous case in which an employer had been sent to jail for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

You simply can't make a joke anymore without it becoming reality. It's driving me out of the comedy business, I tells ya.

(by the way, here's some more on Mencia, who's a complete liar and a thief. And more. His stock response to this is "I think Joe Rogan's in love with me because he's so interested in me." I wish the White House used this tactic. "I think these Senators who want to stop the war in Iraq are GAY! Why are they so interested in me and my war?")