In the continuing
debate over immigration policy, lawmakers would do well to step
back from the politics of the moment and develop a clear,
comprehensive, meaningful, and long-term policy concerning
immigration, naturalization, and citizenship that is
consistent with the core principles, best traditions, and highest
ideals of the United States.
As the United States
Senate considers a temporary worker program as one aspect of that
policy, it is important to review the principles that ought to
guide this discussion and against which any proposed temporary
worker program should be measured.
The Principles of
Immigration
As previously
established, four broad principles should guide United States
immigration policy.[1]
The Consent of the
Governed. The very idea of
sovereignty implies that each nation has the responsibility-and
obligation-to determine and defend its own conditions for
immigration, naturalization, and citizenship. Individuals who are
not citizens do not have a right to American residency or
citizenship without the consent of the American people, as
expressed through the laws of the United States.
National
Security. A disorganized and
chaotic immigration system encourages the circumvention of
immigration laws and is a clear invitation to those who wish to
take advantage of our openness to harm this nation. Secure borders,
especially in a time of terrorist threat, are crucial to American
national security.
The Rule of
Law. Immigration is no
exception to the principle that the rule of law requires the fair,
firm, and equitable enforcement of the law. Congress should require
and provide resources to enforce immigration laws within the United
States, and individuals unlawfully present in the United States
should not be rewarded with amnesty.
Patriotic
Assimilation. A successful
immigration policy must include and emphasize a
deliberate and self-confident policy that welcomes and
assimilates permanent immigrants, with the goal being American
citizenship. This may be a nation of immigrants, but it is more
accurate to say that this is a nation where immigrants are
Americanized, sharing the benefits, responsibilities, and
attachments of American citizenship.
Guiding Principles for
a Temporary Worker Program
The comprehensive
reform of immigration policy has little prospect of success
unless it seriously reduces the growing number of undocumented
workers and benefit recipients in the United States. Among the
proposals designed to accomplish this goal is the creation of a
temporary worker program that would be open to new foreign workers
as well as illegal immigrants currently in the United
States.
A balanced and
well-constructed temporary worker program, by replacing the
incentives for illegal immigration with an option for legal
temporary labor and (in combination with other reforms)
reducing over time the current population of unlawfully present
persons, would foster better national security and serve a growing
economy. Such a temporary worker program would be a valuable and
perhaps even necessary component of a comprehensive immigration
reform proposal.
Nevertheless,
reasonable enthusiasm for such a program in theory must be
moderated by serious and realistic concerns not only about the
failures of such programs in the past and in other countries,[2] but
also regarding how a new program would likely be implemented and
operate in practice.[3] That both the National Commission on
Immigration and Refugee Policy and the U.S. Commission on
Immigration Reform (chaired by the late Representative Barbara
Jordan), after extensive study of the matter, rejected a temporary
or guest worker program for just these reasons should counsel
some trepidation.[4] At the very least, policymakers must bear
in mind during the lawmaking process that an ill-defined and poorly
constructed temporary worker program would make the current
problems of immigration policy much worse.
It is with great care
and prudence, then, that lawmakers should address the many
thorny questions raised by a temporary worker program. In that
process, policymakers should be guided not only by general
principles, but also by several principles particular to a
temporary worker program. These principles should be used to
evaluate and judge any such proposals.
The first priority is
national security. Congress must take
steps to ensure that immigration policy, or the lack of
immigration policy enforcement, does not undermine national
security; and, from a national security perspective,
preventing illegal entry and reducing unlawful presence in the
United States is an imperative. A critical element of any reform
proposal must be to build a "system of systems" that welds all of
the nation's border assets into a single coherent security
strategy-addressing the issue from the point of origin, in transit,
at the border, and within the United States-and strengthens all of
the activities, assets, and programs necessary to enhance
homeland security.[5] While recognizing that a temporary worker
program could potentially contribute to the task of policing
borders and coastlines, a comprehensive plan for integrated border
security must be implemented and operational prior to any
temporary worker program.
There should be no
amnesty program for illegal immigrants. Regardless of the
penalties imposed, any program that grants individuals who are
unlawfully present legal permission to remain here rewards illegal
behavior and is unfair to those who obey the law and go through the
regulatory and administrative requirements to enter the country
legally. Those who enter the United States illegally should not be
rewarded with permanent legal status or other such benefits, and
they should be penalized in any road to citizenship. The cost
of changing one's status from illegal to legal is a
change of condition from a permanent to a
temporary presence in the United States.
Unlawfully present individuals who voluntarily leave the
United States, register with authorities before leaving through the
US-VISIT program, have no criminal record, and agree to abide by
the terms and requirements of a temporary worker program and the
laws of the United States can then apply for legal entry to the
United States without partiality or prejudice.[6]
A temporary worker
program must be a temporary program. Participation in the
program should be of defined and limited duration. If participation
is renewable, there should be a substantive period of time in the
home country between renewals; to be temporary, the program
must not be indefinitely renewable. Indeed, policymakers must be
confident that the program will remain temporary and that, at the
end of program tenure, participants will return to their home
countries. For those individuals who are not present in the
United States, applicants must demonstrate permanent foreign
residence. For those that are currently here illegally, a temporary
worker program should be seen as an attractive and legal avenue for
them to reestablish permanent residence in their home country. In
all cases, participants must show an intention to return to one's
home country ("nonimmigrant intent"). In order to encourage this
outcome, Congress should engage non-governmental organizations and
stakeholders in establishing humanitarian support programs to
assist undocumented workers in returning to their home countries
and could even create a national trust fund, based on
voluntary contributions, to assist in covering the expenses of
returning undocumented workers to their home countries.
A temporary worker
program should not undermine the preferred process of
naturalization. Policymakers should be
concerned if the sheer size or lack of "temporariness" in a
temporary worker program threatens to overwhelm the
immigration process and create de facto permanent residents
without permanent legal status. A temporary worker program must not
be allowed to become merely a legal way to circumvent the rules and
procedures of the naturalization process. This process must be
protected and should be strengthened, and the distinction
between citizen and non-citizen (and between immigrant and
non-immigrant) should be clarified rather than blurred.[7]
Indeed, to the extent that the need is for a larger permanent
working population in the United States, the policy preference
ought not to be workers who are temporary, but assimilated
immigrants who understand and are willing to take on the long-term
responsibilities and obligations of citizenship.
A temporary worker
program should be good for the American economy and as market-based
as possible. Immigration has always
contributed to the expansion of the American economy, and the goal
of this particular program should be no different. In general,
the economic benefits of the program must be understood to outweigh
its costs. The best way to do that is for the operations of a
temporary worker program to be as flexible and market-based as
possible, in accord with basic principles of free-market
economic analysis.[8] It should not be micromanaged by government
agencies, but should leverage the capacity of the private sector to
develop innovative and effective ways of matching sponsoring
employers to eligible employees. As well, a temporary worker
program should provide economic incentives for participants to
abide by the rules of the program and return home at the end of
their program tenure, for both the participant (perhaps in the form
of withheld income or investment accounts) and the employer
(perhaps in the form of a bond to control the flow of workers
and promote compliance). The objective should be to allow for
a reliable and stable source of labor, but for that labor to be
provided by a dynamic and constantly changing temporary work
force.
New programs should not
encourage or exacerbate illegal immigration. While recognizing the
difficulty and challenge of finding and removing every illegal
immigrant in the United States, Congress and the President must
take credible steps to reduce illegal immigration in both annual
and absolute terms. If for no other reason, policymakers should
reject amnesty for illegal immigrants because it would encourage
others to emulate illegal behavior and thereby increase rather than
ameliorate the problem.[9] In considering new programs, policymakers
must also recognize that any program that is vague or
unenforceable, or that allows temporary visitors or workers to
disappear when their legal status expires, would not only mean a
larger illegal immigrant community, but also invite new illegal
immigration-and thus create an even larger public policy
problem.
Serious immigration
reform requires serious enforcement. What immigration policy
needs- as any new program requires-is a clear and determined
strategy to enforce all the rules. Immigration reform in general,
and a temporary worker program in particular, must go hand-in-hand
with a much stronger approach to dealing with violations of our
immigration laws. This means credible workplace enforcement that
imposes steep employer penalties for willfully violating
immigration laws and, without requiring a new large federal
bureaucratic program, targets the largest employers of
unlawful labor and the most egregious violators of immigration
laws. Secure documents, biometric identification, and mandatory
workplace verification would certainly ease the burden on
employees and employers to abide by the rules. Before
proceeding, policymakers must have the political will to
insist on the rule of law.
A temporary worker plan
should be family-friendly. Temporary workers in
the United States should be encouraged to establish long-term
residences, create stable households, and build families in the
country of their permanent citizenship. Policymakers must recognize
that for temporary workers to do so in the United States creates
powerful conditions of permanency, placing the temporary
worker, his family, and those obliged to enforce the law in a
difficult and untenable situation. A family-friendly policy that
respects and encourages permanent households would break
program participation into brief periods, with significant time
between renewal for the temporary worker to reestablish ties to his
or her permanent foreign residence. It would also permit brief
family visits in the United States during periods of program
participation while clarifying that, consistent with the
temporary nature of the program, children born to temporary workers
while in the United States are not automatically United States
citizens.[10]
A temporary worker
program must be administratively feasible and fully
implemented. The infrastructure
necessary for such a program, including the creation of a single
integrated border services agency, must be in place and
working before a temporary worker program is implemented. This
is especially the case with those elements of the program (such as
a biometric identification registry, verification of identity
and criminal security check with the participants' home
country, mandatory workplace verification, and a system of
secure documents) that contribute to the requirements of national
security. Policymakers must have demonstrable confidence
(based on system testing and pilot programs, for example) that the
infrastructure and its system elements are able to manage a program
of this size efficiently and accurately. A pilot program, perhaps
based on the expansion and streamlining of existing non-immigrant
work visa programs, is a reasonable and prudent policy prior to
launching a new program of this magnitude.[11] Given the federal
government's poor track record in consistently enforcing national
immigration laws and providing the resources necessary to carry out
its own policies, there should be measurable border security,
internal enforcement and program infrastructure timetables,
benchmarks, and goals that must be met in order to proceed with the
implementation of a temporary worker program.
International
cooperation requires agreements with participating
countries. A temporary worker
program must include bilateral agreements between the United States
and the participants' home countries. Such agreements would
strengthen cooperation concerning verification of identity and
background security; establish clear agreement to abide by (and
encourage participants to abide by) the rules of the program and
United States immigration laws; facilitate the return of those
nations' citizens at the end of program participation; and
reward nations that develop robust programs that assist in
significantly reducing the unlawful population in the United
States. In lieu of congressional legislation on the matter,
such agreements should also clarify the citizenship status of
children of program participants. Such agreements are also an
opportunity to develop additional incentives for temporary
workers, such as allowing program participants to receive credit in
their home countries' retirement systems, and generally encourage
economic freedom and growth in the nations that these individuals
have left for opportunities in the United States.[12]
Conclusion
It goes without saying
that many aspects of immigration policy are divisive, splitting not
only virtually every segment of political opinion, but also the
American people generally. One of the most divisive and
controversial aspects of the current immigration debate is the
proposal for a temporary worker program. Just as any
immigration reform package must be informed by the proper guiding
principles, thereby balancing national security, economic
interests, and the rule of law, so a temporary worker program-to be
acceptable both in principle and in practice, and to contribute to
the objectives of comprehensive immigration reform-must be
consistent with those principles and thus with the best traditions
and highest ideals of the United States.
Edwin Meese
III is a Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage
Foundation, where he holds the Ronald Reagan Chair in Public
Policy. Matthew Spalding,
Ph.D., is Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American
Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
[1]Edwin Meese III and
Matthew Spalding, "The Principles of Immigration," Heritage
Foundation Backgrounder No. 1807, October 19,
2004.
[2]See, for instance, Dr.
Vernon M. Briggs, "Guestworker Programs for Low-Skilled Workers:
Lessons from the Past and Warnings for the Future," testimony
before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security,
Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, February 5,
2004.
[3]For analysis of the two
leading proposals, see James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., Janice L.
Kephart, and Paul Rosenzweig, "The McCain-Kennedy Immigration
Reform Bill Falls Short," Heritage Foundation Executive
Memorandum No. 975, July 26, 2005, and James Jay Carafano,
Ph.D., Janice L. Kephart, and Alane Kochems, "The Cornyn-Kyl
Immigration Reform Act: Flawed But Fixable," Heritage Foundation
Executive Memorandum No. 982, September 23, 2005.
[4]See National Commission
on Immigration and Refugee Policy, U.S. Immigration Policy and
the National Interest: Final Report, 1981, and U.S. Commission
on Immigration Reform, Becoming an American: Immigration and
Immigration Policy, 1997.
[5]James Jay Carafano,
Ph.D., "Safeguarding America's Sovereignty: A 'System of Systems'
Approach to Border Security," Heritage Foundation
Backgrounder No. 1898, November 28, 2005.
[6]Edwin Meese III, James
Jay Carafano, Ph.D., Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., and Paul Rosenzweig,
"Alternatives to Amnesty: Proposals for Fair and Effective
Immigration Reform," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No.
1858, June 2, 2005.
[7]See Matthew Spalding,
Ph.D., "Making Citizens: The Case for Patriotic Assimilation,"
forthcoming from The Heritage Foundation.
[8]Tim Kane, Ph.D., and
Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., "The Real Problem with
Immigration…and the Real Solution," Heritage Foundation
Backgrounder No. 1913, March 1, 2006.
[9]See Meese et al.,
"Alternatives to Amnesty."
[10]See Edward Erler,
"Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution," Heritage Foundation
WebMemo No. 925, December 1, 2005. This question can be
clarified by legislation and/or bilateral agreement.
[11]This was the position of
the Reagan Administration when the idea was proposed in the early
1980s.
[12]Stephen Johnson,
"Immigration Plans Need a Foreign Policy Component," Heritage
Foundation WebMemo No. 948, December 19, 2005; see also
Stephen Johnson and Sara J. Fitzgerald, "The United States and
Mexico: Partners in Reform," Heritage Foundation
Backgrounder No. 1715, December 18, 2003.