Immigration

No Joke: Republicans Have An Excellent Plan to Fix Immigration

And it does not involve a big, beautiful wall

|

Associating great ideas with Republicans on Capitol Hill might seem like an oxymoron these days. But they have actually produced one. Last

Flag Wall
karenklipo via Foter.com

week Wisconsin's Sen. Ron Johnson introduced a bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee to give states more authority in recruiting foreign workers. Dubbed the State-Based Guest Worker bill, it would hand each state a 5,000 quota (less in a companion bill sponsored by Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colorado) to sponsor foreigners that best meet their local labor needs. This is a less radical version of Canada's highly successful Provincial Nominee Program that allows provinces to actually sponsor permanent residents, not just temporary guest workers. Even so, it's a giant step in the right direction if for no other reason than that it moves America's immigration conversation away from building walls and creating deportation task forces in the Age of Trump, I noted in my column at The Week.

It'll also sidestep Washington's messy politics that have stymied reform and let states make their own bets about immigrants: Spurn them because they fear a drain on public resources or welcome them because they spur the economy.

Also, I discussed this proposal, which Sen. John McCain also jumped in to co-sponsor at the last minute, at Fox Business' Kennedy Nation:

:

Advertisement

NEXT: Courts in federal countries: the US case

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’ll also sidestep Washington’s messy politics that have stymied reform and let states make their own bets about immigrants: Spurn them because they fear a drain on public resources or welcome them because they spur the economy.

    Because 5,000 people invited in on guest worker permits are just like 5,000 people that just show up?

    1. In a battle between not allowing anyone to show up, and allowing 5,000 people to show up contingent some cronyist bullshit, the latter option is more libertarian. It’s sort of like is medical marijuana superior to a total ban on marijuana. Medical marijuana is cronyist bullshit (you should look at who gets licenses to grow and sell it), but it’s better than criminalizing it.

      1. So given the binary choice of people are invited or people are not allowed, what do you do when people who are not allowed invite themselves?

      2. In the choice between getting kicked in the balls or punched in the face, getting kicked in the balls is more libertarian, because not everyone has balls.

        1. Also, all Libertarians have balls as there are no female libertarians.

    2. It’s a good thing no state has anything like 5,000 people standing around looking for work.

      1. I don’t know about 5,000, but there are a few dozen hanging around the parking lot of my Home Depot.

        1. OK, the ones I had in mind are probably not “standing around” so much as “loafing in front of the television”.

          1. State? Why down my way there are 5000 people in a half a dozen neighborhoods standing around without work. The only upside is they’re not looking for work. So I guess there’s that.

  2. Who are you and what have you done with Shikha? Have we been fooled into following a @shikhadalmia parody account when we should’ve been following @therealshikhadalmia?

    Does the program repeal and replace the H1B or other programs? Who’s on the hook for enforcement?

  3. At this point, I favor the wall mostly because it causes such pain to people like Dalmia. Who is such an insufferably progtarded bitch who dares think of herself as somehow libertarian.

    1. Freedom is about stopping brown people from stealing my job.

      /derp

      1. Freedom is about stopping brown people from stealing my job.

        Ironically, that’s part of the widely-loathed Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 portion of my employment agreement. We all agree that it’s a stigma on the company’s reputation but nobody has the political will to actually remove it.

      2. brown people

        You know who else reduces every argument to allegations of racism?

      3. Freedom certainly isn’t about the government subsidizing the cost of hiring refugees to make it so low that unskilled workers couldn’t possibly compete on a cost basis.

        That isn’t even about the refugees. It’s about government messing with the tax code to pick winners and losers.

      4. You know it’s gonna be a great thread when Hazel the Mad shows up on it. It makes feel like a small boy with a stick, with a barking dog behind a fence.

        1. Hazel is obsessed with resisting the evil redneck menace that mostly only exists in her head.

          It’s like railing against communists like Ayn Rand–aren’t all Russian atheists communists?

          It’s like she’s railing against the Unitarians for some sign the Westboro Baptist church was holding.

          Honestly, she thinks blue collar Americans are her mortal enemy, that they’re all racist, and to resist them . . . I’m not sure what she couldn’t rationalize.

          Doesn’t her observation that blue collar America doesn’t want to compete with brown people pretty much cover everything?

    2. Yeah yeah yeah, principals over principles.

      This is why we can’t have nice things.

    3. Last of the Shitlords, that’s the kind of thinking that leads to most murder-suicides.

  4. This is a less radical version of Canada’s highly successful Provincial Nominee Program that allows provinces to actually sponsor permanent residents, not just temporary guest workers.

    I don’t feel like looking, but wasn’t Shikha complaining about how racist and awful the Canadian system was just a couple months ago?

  5. It’s a negotiating publishing tactic. Shikha’s been doing deals publishing for a long time. She’s been making lots of wonderful deals articles, great deals articles. That’s what she does.

    1. This was intended in reply to X above.

      *leaves for more coffee*

    2. This was not one of them!

  6. Why would states need 5,000 foreign guest workers when they’ve got plenty of state prisoners in their domestic guest worker program? I just don’t see any benefit to having a coupon for imported labor that could be handed out to favored cronies and friends in the hands of state pols. We’ve got all the corruption we need already, thank you very much.

    1. I just don’t see any benefit to having a coupon for imported labor that could be handed out to favored cronies and friends in the hands of state pols.

      Depending on details, the coupons from IN, WI, IA, MT, etc. don’t *all* go to putting more people from India with degrees to work in Silicon Valley.

      1. They could make them transferable. How many bitcoins would each one be worth?

        1. I find your lack of faith in the blockchain appropriate.

    2. True instead of one crooked branch of government being paid off by corporations to allow unneeded employes we will have 50 different state branchs. it will be more costly for the corporations to pay off fifty instead of oen

  7. A lot of this stuff ends up being rent seeking.

    This happens, for instance, with new meat packing plants in Idaho.

    Oh, we’d love to build a new meat packing plant here, but we can’t afford the labor. If you’ll bring in a few thousand Somali refugees, we’ll be happy to build the plant.

    There have been state resettlement programs to help funnel cheap labor into more rural America for a long time.

    Here’s one I picked at random:

    https://tinyurl.com/myfofjv

    The “sponsoring agencies” they’re talking about are typically potential employers–who want the cheap labor and sign up to get them some refugees, what have you.

    This is more rural employers using the refugee program for rent seeking. In Arizona, for instance, they’re giving these refugees welfare, medical care, and housing while they’re being processed through the system

    My understanding is that employers on the program can get subsidies for hiring refugees, can effectively pay them below the minimum wage, etc.

  8. My understanding is that employers on the program can get subsidies for hiring refugees, can effectively pay them below the minimum wage, etc.

    Do you people seriously have no idea why Trump was elected?

    I’m all for unskilled Americans competing with immigrants for work. Don’t know why they should need to compete with the government actively working against them.

  9. Check this out:

    The Partnership for Refugees is a refugee public-private partnership established in June 2016 by the Obama administration to facilitate President Barack Obama’s commitment to creative solutions for the refugee crisis engaging the private sector. The Partnership, an initiative established through collaboration between the State Department and USA for UNHCR with significant support from Accenture Federal Services, was established to facilitate private sector commitments in response to President Obama’s June 30, 2016 Call to Action for Private Sector Engagement on the Global Refugee Crisis.[1][2] On September 20, 2016, at the Leaders Summit on Refugees at the United Nations, President Obama announced that 51 companies from across the American economy have pledged to make new, measurable and significant commitments that will have a durable impact on refugees residing in countries on the frontlines of the global refugee crisis and in countries of resettlement, like the United States.[1]

    https://tinyurl.com/mqgwzjq

    Isn’t that great?

    1. From the same link, here’s an example of what they do:

      “Chobani pledged to continue its ongoing commitment to welcome people from all over the world to join the company, including those in its local communities who are resettled refugees. It will look for ways to support the broader business community by sharing its experiences and learnings, and work with the Partnership for Refugees to help ensure this insight is incorporated into research and materials to improve cross-sector knowledge.”

      Chobani pledged to keep staffing plants with refugees who work for less than Americans. Isn’t that . . . big-hearted of them?

      I wonder, does agreeing to work for Chobani improve a refugee’s chances of being accepted for resettlement?

      If it doesn’t, do they know that?

      Can refugees be deported if they quit or lose their sponsoring company?

      If they can’t, do they know that?

    2. I’m scanning what I can to see if there are wage supports (subsidies) which would, in fact effectively allow companies to hire refugees at sub-minimum wage.

      A lot of the companies look like they’ll provide ‘services’ or ‘educational opportunities’ to refugees. I have to admit, I’m not sure teaching a 48 yr old Syrian woman “coding skills” who doesn’t speak English and really wants to get back to Syria as soon as the people she left behind straighten the country out is an effective or meaningful strategy.

      1. They become eligible for all sorts of social services, TANF, Refugee Cash Assistance, etc.

        I’ve been looking around for specific information on subsidies.

        One thing is that hiring refugees gets you the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which has been expanded to be as much as $9,600 depending on the employee.

        https://tinyurl.com/hyqosvc

        Back of the napkin:

        I saw a stat that said the average refugee makes about $10.50 an hour.

        $10.50 * 40 hours * 52 weeks = $21,840 per year in salary.

        $21,840 – $9,600 = $12,240

        $12,240 divided by 52 divided by 40 = $5.88 an hour.

        1. I was being liberal with my estimate of hourly pay.

          “Most refugees placed by the USCRI appear to be employed in low-level jobs, earning an average of $10.26 per hour.

          https://tinyurl.com/mwf7q5k

          They get paid even less than my back of the napkin calculation.

          So, it costs companies even less than $5.88 an hour to hire refugees–relative to locals.

  10. It’s really weird that it’s a fixed amount per state. Like…what the hell is Montana going to do with 5,000 migrant workers? And doesn’t California add that many in a long weekend? (only kinda joking)

    1. Well, Montana is always on the lookout for a few thousand militia members, in case The liberals win anything again.
      California will reject the program because they are going to secede.

      1. About California (or any other set of states that want to Secede)… if these state(s) were to secede, would they form some kind of confederation– and perhaps even have a flag?

    2. Like they did in Idaho with the Chobani plant.

      30% of Chobani’s factory workers are refugees They bring them in by the hundreds.

    3. It’s really weird that it’s a fixed amount per state.

      I suspect that’s just a way to make it look all experiment-y (50 labs of freedom!). If they had done it proportionally it would have been indistinguishable from the existing programs.

      1. Like I said, I think this is about being able to hand out favors at the state level.

        I can send you 5,000 cheap laborers this year–now what can you do for my reelection chances?

        1. Obama nearly created an entire political movement by “looking the other way” with regards to immigration. We already have enough immigration laws, IF WE USE THEM. The worlds refugee crisis belongs to the world, not just the U.S. It’s vital to get ahead of this crisis and understand why these people are wanting to leave and deal with the issue at their home and not let such a crisis even develop.

      2. Splitting it evenly makes it look less arbitrary.

  11. Sorry.
    SD:DR

    1. Sucking dick, didn’t read? Well, come back when you are done.

      1. I wandered what that abbreviation stood for.

        Does TL stand for Trannie Loofahing?

  12. Why not just follow article 1 section 9 of the US constitution and have “the Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit…”

    1. The year 1808 has come and gone, dude.

      1. Before 1808 the feds could impose a tax/fee of up to $10
        After 1808 the feds could “prohibit” immigration.

        But only the states can set the criteria.

        Section 9 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

        And most would read this as only applying to slaves. In that case no general power of immigration control given to the federal government.

        1. on closer reading the states admit, the federal government can only prohibit. (But probably only applies to slaves)

    2. Psh. Are you kidding? The Constitution was written by a bunch of white dudes with slaves, like, a hundred years ago.

      1. Doesn’t that clause refer to importation of slaves?

        1. Bingo

          1. Ok then the Federal government only has control over the importation/immigration of slaves. That control being abolishment, or a tax or fee up to $10.

            Since no general power over immigration is enumerated for the federal government (or “not delegated to the United States by the Constitution”), then the 10th Amendment has the say.

            “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

            Of course the Attorney General could always use the always popular FYTY legal argument.

      2. Less than half had slaves.

        1. Psh.

          1. There were 55 constitutional delegates. 25 owned at least one slave. 1 didn’t own slaves but was involved in the slave trade. Only 19 relied primarily on slaves for their livelihood.

  13. Associating great ideas with Republicans on Capitol Hill might seem like an oxymoron these days.

    Fixed for universal accuracy.

  14. Or we could end the War on Drugs and export capitalism to improve the lives of people in those countries so they stay there. Also get rid of birthright citzenship.

    1. It’s so simple. Fire up the capitalism factories, we gonna export overseas!

  15. Well Shikha,

    That plan is all fine and well but it’s the Constitution that gives the President the power to regulate our borders. So, that said it may be ok for states internal to our larger national border to regulate their own immigrants, but that duty still belongs to Congress. Unless we have a president, like Barry, that decides not to enforce ANY existing laws. Then we have a problem. There are already plenty of completely agreeable laws that do allow immigrants to enter the U.S. We do not need more. We just need to enforce laws already in place. The U.S. has been “that shining city on the hill” that has allowed immigration and for us to now change how we do that makes no sense. If the immigrants violate those laws, then they are subject to deportation. Period, end of story. 🙂

  16. shopping discount self portrait dresses on http://www.selfoutlets.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.