If it's in the News, it's in our Polls. Public opinion polling since 2003.

 

Fewer Border Crossings, E-Verify System Justify Bill

A Commentary By Michael Barone

Monday, May 06, 2013

Many loud voices in the debate over immigration have been insisting that effective border enforcement must precede any steps that legalize the status of current illegal immigrants.   

Some analysts, including my Washington Examiner colleague Byron York, have been reading the fine print in the 800-page draft prepared by the Senate Gang of Eight (or Gang of Ocho, if you prefer).   

They argue that the legislation is quick to provide some form of legal status but only calls for commissions to be convened at some later time if the border is not secured. There's something to these arguments.   

The Gang of Eight, like the drafters of the 1986 law and the bills that failed to pass in 2006 and 2007, is offering a deal: legalization in return for effective enforcement. The 1986 law, it is widely agreed, did not deliver on enforcement, and this bill wouldn't, either.   

But that is yesterday's issue. The border doesn't matter so much as it used to.   

That's because the U.S. is not likely to have another wave of immigration across the border from Mexico anywhere near the magnitude of the one from 1982 to 2007.   

During most of that time, Mexico's birth rates were high, and its economy was hit by periodic crashes. In most of those years, the United States was generating large numbers of new jobs, especially in California and Texas. The wave of immigration from Mexico followed.   

Today conditions are different. Mexico's birth rates have fallen; its economy is growing, while ours struggles; and the dream of homeownership in the U.S. was shattered as foreclosures took a heavy toll on Hispanic immigrants.   

We can do better on the border -- though we should keep in mind that Texas leaders, including Gov. Rick Perry, don't want a fence along the Rio Grande. But those who fear that legalization would trigger another wave of illegals would be wise to direct their attention to other parts of the legislation.   

One is E-Verify, the system to determine the legal status of job applicants by checking their Social Security numbers. It's been required for some employers in states such as Arizona, and a survey conducted for ImmigrationWorks USA, a group that favors a comprehensive bill, reports that 23 percent of restaurant owners are using it today.   

The Gang of Eight says that its bill would mandate the use of E-Verify. It's a tool that was not available when the 1986 law was passed.   

Most Americans then, left and right, were skittish about creating anything like a national identity card. Americans today, after years of mass illegal immigration and terrorist attacks, seem less troubled by this.   

An effective means of validating legal status -- and why should this be harder than what Visa and MasterCard do every day? -- could vastly reduce job opportunities for illegal immigrants. It could dramatically decrease the incentive to cross the border illegally or overstay a visa.   

Those who fear future illegal immigration should be drilling down into the E-Verify sections. When would its use be required? And of whom? What are the standards it would have to meet, and who would decide?   

It's possible that a case can be made for strengthening the E-Verify provisions. Those who don't want another wave of illegals should make that case if they can.   

The other area of concern to those who decry mass low-skill immigration is the section covering high-skill immigration.   

The Gang of Eight says it would increase the slots for high-skill immigrants. That would move us some distance toward countries such as Canada and Australia, which limit immigration to those with high skills.   

Currently, we have a small number of H-1B visas allowing entry to those with high-tech skills. Surely, we need to increase that number.   

But should we limit those immigrants, as we currently do, to one employer? Maybe high-skill immigrants could make more contributions to our society if they were able to operate freely in the marketplace.   

Major immigration legislation gets passed only every generation or two -- 1924, 1965, 1986. The provisions of the law end up shaping the future population of the nation, sometimes in unanticipated ways.   

One of those unanticipated ways was the wave of illegal low-skill immigrants -- mainly, but not entirely, from Mexico -- that started in the early 1980s and was accelerated by the 1986 law.   

Those who regret that would be wise to concentrate not on yesterday's issues but on tomorrow's issues, such as employer verification and encouraging high-skill immigration.

Michael Barone, senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com), is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. 

COPYRIGHT 2013 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

See Other Political Commentaries.

See Other Commentaries by Michael Barone.

Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports. Comments about this content should be directed to the author or syndicate.

Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.

We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.

Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $3.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.

To learn more about our methodology, click here.