Arizona’s Immigration Tough Guys Are at it Again, Should the GOP Follow Along?

(Left to Right) Rep. Vic Williams, Sen. Russell Pearce, Rep. Sam Crump, LD11 Senate Candidate Rich Davis, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Rep. Jerry Weiers, JD Hayworth, Sen. Thayer Verschoor, County Attorney Andrew Thomas, Sen. John Huppenthal

The tough guys are at it again.  J.D. Hayworth, Joe Arpaio, Russell Pearce and Andrew Thomas all shared the podium for the Arizona Republic photo-op Wednesday.  They told the crowd what they wanted to hear:  they’d to put more teeth into Arizona’s border security and hunt down the illegal immigrants.  The whole immigration issue has lost some of its “hot-button significance” due to the economy (the experts tell us that there has been an exodus of approximately 1 million “illegals” nationally during 2009); however, there’s still considerable animosity among the electorate that boils just under the surface.  And, these guys are not only going to the legislature; they’re ready with an initiative campaign if you don’t take them seriously.

So what does this mean for the Republican mainstream?  Certainly it’s not nearly as big a problem as what to do about the $2 billion state budget deficit.  But should the Party embrace the fight or is it smarter to be more circumspect? 

Recent election history shows that anti-immigrant hyperbole plays well to a niche group within the party, energizing the grassroots, but losing in the fall.  Look at J.D. Hayworth’s doomed campaign against Harry Mitchell.  Pete Wilson’s tirades effectively pushed California into “permanent blue-state status.”   I think for most independents and moderates, it’s a lot like listening to Rush, we agree with most of what he has to say, but we don’t like the way he says it.

Those who want to close the border score big points when they stick to the two primary issues:  the right of every country to control its borders, and the belief in, and respect for the rule of law.  But there are mitigating factors that ought to moderate our rhetoric.

First, we lost control of the borders a long time ago, at least as early as the 1970’s.  Ronald Reagan’s Immigration and Control Act of 1986 acknowledged the problem, and was meant to deal with the issue, but after granting amnesty, we failed close the border.  Now that was wrong, but everyone knew about it.  When the problem came on everyone’s radar a couple of years ago as a top of mind political issue, it seemed a little like Claude Rains closing Rick’s American Café for gambling while still accepting his winnings.  Where was the outrage for Pearce, Hayworth, Arpaio and Thomas during the 90’s?  I wonder how many of them came in regular contact with gardeners, handymen, dishwashers, housekeepers, etc. who were in this country illegally.  Didn’t they notice all the Spanish radio and TV stations and all the advertising?  There are areas around Arizona that could be used as a movie-set to portray Mexico.  Rush had a podium during all the nanny-gates, where was his moral outrage then?  I remember a book that was given to me as a gift in 1986 written by the British research organization called Oxford Analytica that outlined this entire scenario.  It is hard for me to believe that all the smart people in Washington woke up one morning in 2005 and suddenly realized we had a problem with illegal immigration.  No, the official U.S. position for twenty years was “don’t ask, don’t tell,” unless you needed Senate confirmation.

 Secondly, we need to be mindful of the economics of the situation.  While operating a manufacturing business for 19 years, I never purposely hired an illegal.  There were a couple of people who I suspected after the fact (you can usually tell), but they were short timers.  No, the bulk of my employees, who started between $8 and $11 per hour were U.S. citizens or had legal status.  I can definitely say, taken as a group, the immigrants, or children raised in immigrant households, had a much better work ethic.  With few exceptions, the “Americanized” workers had terrible drug problems and/or completely unstable lives.  During economic booms, they just didn’t care; they could start another low-paying job within days.  So absenteeism and tardiness were extremely high (a real problem for a manufacturer), and morale was low, they just didn’t care.  Ironically, because I refused to hire illegal workers, some of my best employees had just been released from prison, but they were still on probation.  While on probation, they had to take drug tests.  I could always tell when they went off probation.   In just about every case a self-destructive cycle began, which eventually led to their dismissal.  The point is that those who really need to worry about keeping their jobs from immigrants are the casual laborers.  People in the middle and upper income brackets actually benefit from immigrant’s willingness to take the lower-paying jobs.

But that is only part of the economic picture.  Fertility rates among U.S. citizens have been too low to sustain, let alone grow the population.  This is not all bad, with one major exception, but its a big one:  entitlements.  Our public welfare system, like it or not, depends on large numbers of payers compared to relatively few recipients.  Without the F.I.C.A. contributions of immigrants, both legal and illegal, we’d be in much worse financial shape than we’re in now, which is pretty bad.  Logically then, entitlemnet reform should come before  immigration reform, but that’s something no one is willing to talk about.  (It also exacerbates our housing problem, but that’s not a reason not to enact reforms).

The third moderating factor ought to be our Christian heritage.  This does not negate our right and obvious need to control the border, and to respect the rule of law; however, our neighbors to the South are just that, our neighbors, and we should be charitable to them if we can be. 

As a matter of fact, we should acknowledge the extent that our country’s drug problem creates a terribly destabilizing effect on their economies.  The demand for illicit drugs in this country is so strong that it creates powerful crime organizations that undermine laws, governments, and economies on both sides of the border. 

Alternatively, take a look at what the democrats are doing.  Former Governor, now Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano has moved the administration’s position to the middle.  She at least seems to be giving more than lip service to “closing the border.”   She has refused to call off federal raids on factories entirely, started audits of more than 600 businesses nationwide, and sought to expand and improve E-Verify, the federal program that allows employers to check the status of new hires.  In addition, she claims to be looking for ways to focus more enforcement efforts on gang members, convicts and employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens.  Napolitano’s actions have even drawn criticism from some organizations on the left.

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer (New York), Chairman of the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Immigration, also seems intent on toughening his party’s position on illegal immigration.  He says that they must “convince the American people there will not be new waves of illegal immigrants.”

Of course all of this is in preparation of some kind of amnesty program.  But if we can effectively control illegal immigration, the benefits of such a program would far outweigh its negatives.  It seems our position should be to hold the Democrats accountable, without antagonizing millions of law-abiding voters.