Hayworth Opposed to Pence and Hutchison's Indentured Servitude Proposal

Hell has frozen over tonight.

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) are proposing a plan for "Securing the Borders and Reforming Immigration Without Amnesty." The official name is The Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act.

Under this plan, undocumented immigrants to the U.S. would return to their home countries, and get matched with a corporation looking for workers at an "Ellis Island Center", then apply for a "Good Neighbor SAFE (Secure Authorized Foreign Employee) Visa." If accepted after passing background, criminal and health checks, these "SAFE" workers will have to reapply every two years for up to twelve total years. After that, if eligible, the worker will have to apply for an "X-Change" Visa for 5 more years, and every 5 years after that.

Workers would be able to leave the U.S. at any time and apply for a permanent visa.

Workers' families (spouse, children) could come with the worker if they passed the same checks.

Workers and their families would pay the same taxes (income, SS, Medicare, etc.) but would not be eligible for any government benefits other than those mandated for non-immigrant visa holders.

There are other details, but these are most of the high points.

Where do I start?

How about with a question, like "Are members of Congress subject to random drug testing?" These two definitely should be 'randomly' tested.

Or to be more tactful, were they under a doctor's care when they came up with the brilliant idea that the estimated 12 million undocumented aliens in the U.S. would just up and leave on the chance, only the *chance* mind you, that they might be allowed to return?

As for these "Ellis Island Centers" - they "will be managed by American-owned private employment agencies that open branches (“Ellis Island Centers”) in NAFTA and CAFTA-DR nations." In addition to taking applications and pairing up the foreign workers with their new masters...errr...'employers'...the Centers will be responsible for running the criminal, background and health checks on the workers.

Maybe my memory is a little hazy on this and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the last time we allowed corporations to be responsible for the security of the U.S. they let 19 guys with boxcutters change the course of American history. And ensure a 2nd term for the worst president ever.

The employers that are part of the program will get to fill jobs that they have not been able to fill after advertising "the job opening[s] at a wage that is commensurate with the trade or industry in that locality (but that is not a Davis-Bacon wage requirement)."

That Davis-Bacon exemption means that the employers would not have to offer the jobs at the prevailing wage for the industry and area; they would just call whatever they wanted to pay "reasonable" and go running for cheap labor supplied by the U.S. government when no one jumped at the chance to break their backs for minimum wage and no benefits.

One of the summaries that I read stated that the jobs available would be those that employers could not fill at market wages. Now, I've only taken a couple of introductory economics courses, but it seems to me that means that the offered wages were *below* what the market called for.

The proposal is also a way to get the creation of a national ID card and registry in through the back door.

First, the setup - "...SAFE Visas will be issued in the form of secure wallet-sized cards that contain information about the job... and it will contain personal and biometric information about the Good Neighbor SAFE Visa holder."

Later, the coup de grace - "...Six years after enactment the nationwide employment eligibility verification system will go into effect for all employees. At that time, employers will be required to verify the legal status of their entire workforce." [Emphasis theirs]

Other nice tidbits in the proposal:

"Upon leaving the employ of a sponsoring employer, a Good Neighbor SAFE Visa holder will be provided with a 45-day period in which to find a new sponsoring employer through an Ellis Island Center. "

In other words, if the indentured worker leaves a job for any reason - laid off, fired, got sick, got pregnant, quit even for safety reasons or because of employer harassment or malfeasance, for ANY reason, the worker will have 6 weeks to find a new master or he/she and family will have to leave.

And of course with this brazenly corrupt (see: the giveaways to big business) yet charmingly bigoted bunch, there's an English language requirement.

"...Visa holders will be required to study English, take an English proficiency class, and pass an exam to receive their first visa renewal. The government will allow private industry to administer the exam to avoid growing the federal bureaucracy..."

Now, I actually think that it's a good idea to learn the language of any country you move to. Somebody moving to France should learn French; someone moving to the Philippines should learn Tagalog; someone moving here should learn English. It's just smart.

And I think that it is ok to require English proficiency for immigrants to become permanent residents or better yet, to become citizens.

But we're back to allowing private industry to control the safety and future of America's citizens and other residents, when it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that corporations care only about one thing, profit.

And naturally, the writers of this proposal slipped in some language for 'faith-based' efforts, with funding provided.

Then there's the whole idea of having these "SAFE" workers have the same pay deductions as citizens, but without the benefits.

Harken back to 6th grade social studies class and see if this phrase rings a bell - "Taxation without representation."

I could go on, but by now you are probably asking how I got off on this rant, especially on a proposal that was first unveiled in May. I was checking The Hill's CongressBlog and found an entry from J.D. Hayworth criticizing the plan.

"I believe that there is a consensus for enforcement first. No tricks, no triggers, no overly-complicated compromises. They’re my good friends, but I don’t believe this is the correct remedy. "

Being a constituent and something of a student of JD's, I immediately assumed that the plan was a brilliant one.

Then I read the plan, and almost puked.

It treats immigrants and their families like chattel.

In a craven sop to Big Business, it's an attempt to further drive down the already shrinking wage of the American worker.

It surrenders responsibility for the safety of the country to for-profit organizations, all in the name of 'smaller government.'

The proposal is garbage.

JD and I may have very different reasons (him - it's not brutal enough; me - it's inhumane) for reaching the same conclusion, but this once, we have.

"Next up on SkyEye Weather, Biff tells us about the Nor'easter approaching the Phoenix area. Get out your mittens and snow shovels everyone!"

LOL. Later!!