Immigration Reform: Joe Sigg Debates Don Goldwater
Joe Sigg, Arizona Farm Bureau
Thank you Don. Thanks to Robert for moderating. I appreciate the invitation
from the Valley Citizens League and thanks to all of you for coming.
In the interest of full disclosure I am a lobbyist. I am still afraid to break the
news to my mother, but I am. I have an agenda. I am not objective – no one
is. But I try to be fair.
Farm Bureau has been active on immigration reform for about 8 years, and our agenda is quite simple: we need legal and reliable labor pools. We have neither. We have been down many roads over these years – you may disagree with our positions, but they are well studied, experienced and creditable.
We support an integrated approach to immigration: security, enforcement
and visa reform - it is a three legged stool – all three legs are indispensable and complimentary.
We must pay better attention to our borders, workplace enforcement requires better and fewer documents with improved identifiers. At present employers can be faced with 29 separate documents, easily forged.
We need reliable methods of verification, and our visas, quotas and processes must be realistic.
Security, enforcement and visa reform – it works together as a three legged stool.
Normally, I don’t agree with the specifics of Bob Robb’s columns on
immigration and Sunday’s in the Arizona Republic was no exception, but his theme was exactly spot on: all sides, and there are many to this immigration
issue need to relax just a bit, take a deep breath, give a little and move to
reasonable compromise.
With respect Don’s side does not appear ready for this as evidenced by his
presentation and his letter last week to Senator Kyl. “Amnesty” is a
provocative word – it provokes everything but promotes nothing in my view. It is a slogan – not a solution. If I say “guestworker” – its called amnesty. If I say “reform” its called amnesty. In fact de facto amnesty is what we currently have.
We need respect for law, but we are not following it nor will we
follow it because some of it is unrealistic – some of it unthinkable.
We must respect law, but law must respect realities.
Behavior and norms on the ground always precede codifications and re-codifications of law – should they be highly debated – you bet – but this issue of immigration has gone on far too long and the costs of no compromise, already huge in human and treasury terms, are rising.
To be certain there are problems:
Cultural and social justice issues, outright criminal behavior, public policy costs – mandated and non-reimbursed by the federal government, significant economic issues, and then visa laws and processes that have only a passing acquaintance with reality.
All of this creates fear: fear of cultural loss, fear of tax dollars being absorbed by those not entitled, fear in neighborhoods, fear from an
unsecured border, fear of job loss, fear of losing power and control. This fear
is being packaged in political form. I don’t subscribe to it, and it won’t solve
problems. Fear paralyzes, – it does not mobilize in measured well thought
out solutions.
We have ingrained and intertwined problems and we need a fully integrated
approach – not paralysis.
I won’t totally bore you with a descent into economic statistics and quotes but I borrow from a study by the U of A: “Labor markets around the world are more integrated, more competitive and more mobile. Demographic trends have divided the world into two camps. One is characterized by mature,immigrant receiving economies with aging, slow growing populations. The other consists of developing, immigrant-sending economies. Legal as well as illegal migration by people is a world-wide phenomenon.”
Raising wages will not increase the native born population available for
work. In the next 15 years, the number of those 55 and older will grow by 5
times the growth in the work force. In 2008 we will tip the balance and we
will have more folks leaving the labor market than entering it. We are
getting older, increasingly educated (we are now at less than 10% of those
under 25 without a high school diploma) and we have other alternatives.
Despite technology, some of the fastest growing jobs are for those with entry
level skills and lets remember this is not just about entry level skilled needs.
This is not a matter of work ethic or a suggestion that Americans won’t do
the jobs – we simply have a decreasing labor pool of those available to do
jobs.
All industrialized countries have increasing reliance on immigrant labor –
does this make you uncomfortable? Of course. Does this create problems?
Of course. But it is a reality.
Meanwhile, this country needs 500,000 new unskilled entrants into the labor
force each year and we have visas for 5,000. For the H1B visa, specially
trained foreign workers, this year we used up our quotas in one day.
You can talk about wages and the taking of jobs – which by the way I
disagree with – job creation is complimentary – my ability to have and to do
work depends upon the next person being available and doing their job. The
Public Policy Institute of California studied the issue and found these
immigrants actually created jobs.
Who is going to do the work? Through a series of major bungling and years
of neglect - in excess of 7.5 million people – 5% of our work force is not
legally documented – that’s a shame for our security and rule of law.
But you cannot unplug this with no replacement pool available without
severe economic dislocation and for those industries that can outsource they
will. And for the latter they will either import their labor or export their
business.
We need immigrant labor. We also need reasonable solutions to the problems we face.
Which brings me to the employer sanctions initiative Don and his group are
circulating. Just because the state can put someone out of business, does not
mean it is good public policy. Because of federal preemption, the state
cannot directly fine employers for violating federal immigration laws –
states can lift licenses.
There are some exceptions in the initiative, but lets focus on the premise for
what it is: putting people out of business. This discussion of lifting of
licenses is a euphemism for what would happen under this initiative. If you
are convicted of knowingly hiring undocumented workers, we are going to
lift your license…license is a broad application of the state permitting you to
do something to include your articles of incorporation or partnership or a
specific permit to do something – some licenses are structural to a business
– some are operational.
Immigration is the issue du jour. But next year are we going to put people
out of business for not paying their taxes, or for not conserving water? How
about violating air quality laws?
There are some things the state can do about illegal hiring – but not in this
fashion.
And again just because the state can put you out of business, does not mean
it is a wise course of action.
Public policy should always be measured and proportional – the initiative is
neither. First offense and off with your head – no consideration of
circumstances, nature of the offense or patterns of behavior – you are out of
business with no process for reinstatement.
The truth is employers are legally and unknowingly hiring the illegal in large
numbers owing to the proliferation of fraudulent documents. The initiative
ties definitions of “knowingly” to federal standards which is as much a
process as it is a definition. It is actually the I-9 process for those of you who
are familiar with hiring.
The feds are in the process of revising rules as to when an employer has
constructive knowledge – either in the hiring process or subsequent. This
definition of knowingly is becoming cloudier. Mistakes will be made,
there will be paperwork violations – for the small party trying to cover all of
the bases of running a business and for the larger guy with volumes of
turnover. And with what is at stake there will be opportunity for mischief
and shakedowns.
What if I lose an I-9 and the employee happens to be illegal – I have no
proof I followed the law and could be held to a knowing standard and fines
from $250 to $10,000 by the feds – but the state of Arizona is going to put me out of business.
What about a supervisor who hears candid comments from employees
admitting they used fraudulent documents to be hired, but fails to
report them. The state would put the whole firm out of business – there
is no consideration or leeway in the initiative.
A single mistake trumps all the investment, business and jobs of everyone, including allied infrastructures of other businesses relying on the one being
put out of business? You too could lose your job.
This initiative is neither measured nor proportional in its response.
I close with mention of some other stark language in the initiative. All complaints shall be investigated if they are not frivolous – which is a standard just above not fanciful or not ludicrous. Don’t you suppose there will be a flood of complaints, especially when they can be anonymous?
And then the courts shall expedite the action – I guess this issue trumps all
other issues.
All I can say is its probably a good thing the initiative exempts attorneys
from losing their licenses, as we are going to need plenty of them if this
initiative passes.
Just because we need to so something about illegal immigration does not
mean we need to do this. There are other choices.
Thank you.
