Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger didn’t have answers on policy toward illegal immigration before Saturday’s massive rally in downtown Los Angeles. It remains to be seen if he has them now. But he does have a start.
In an op-ed piece for today’s Los Angeles Times, the moderate Republican who is himself California’s most famous immigrant lays out what might best be described as an approach to a policy.
“First, immigration is about our security,” Schwarzenegger writes. “The first order of business for the federal government is to secure our borders. And Washington simply must do a better job of it. We learned on 9/11 that not all those who cross our borders want to share in the American dream. A few want to replace it with a nightmare.”
In case you hadn’t gotten the message about who the governor says is responsible for ensuring what he describes as his top priority, he goes on to say that “Congress must strengthen our borders.”
So far, he has no state role in immigration security. And the particulars of the federal role are quite unclear. Should border security be heavily beefed up in the form of the Border Patrol or other security forces, as U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein has suggested? Should there be a fence or wall, as called for in other proposals, including the Sensenbrenner bill currently at issue in Congress? The governor doesn’t say.
In any event, it’s a far cry from the hurried comments in favor of the irresponsible “Minutemen” movement that landed him in hot water last year.
“Criminalizing immigrants for coming here is a slogan, not a solution,” writes the former action superstar, placing himself in opposition to the core notion of the bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. “Instead, I urge Congress to get tough on those illegal immigrants who are a danger to society,” referring to people who commit crimes while in the country illegally, urging their immediate deportation.
“Second, immigration is about our economy,” states the pro-business politician. “The freest nation in the world, and the freest economy in history, depend on a free flow of people,” a phrase which might be misinterpreted. “Immigrants are here to work and contribute. I support efforts to ensure that our businesses have the workers they need and that immigrants are treated with the respect they deserve. We should pass a common-sense temporary worker program so that every person in our nation is documented.”
Schwarzenegger thus places himself in favor of a guest worker program. Yet he leaves the particulars, its duration, its parameters, for another time.
He then comes out against a blanket amnesty program: “We can embrace the immigrant without endorsing illegal immigration.”
“Granting citizenship to people who are here illegally,” the governor says, “is not just amnesty … it’s anarchy. We are a country of immigrants, yes. But we are also a nation of laws. People who want to be citizens will want to do it the right way.” Again leaving the particulars of how a citizenship program might be structured for another time.
Schwarzenegger then comes out for what what is commonly called “mainstreaming.” With a positive spin rather than any denunciation of unassimilated enclaves.
“Finally,” he writes, “immigration is about our values. Too often the debate centers on what immigrants owe us. Too seldom do we ask what we owe them. Above all, we owe it to our country and our immigrants to share our values. We should talk about our history, our institutions and our beliefs. We should assimilate immigrants into the mainstream. We want immigrants to not just live in America but to live as Americans.”
It will be interesting to see how Arnold fleshes this out in the midst of an election year. He and his people know that his doing away with the very unpopular drivers licenses for illegal immigrants bill signed by then Governor Gray Davis was one of his most popular acts as governor in 2003 and now. They also know that a latter day version of 1994’s Proposition 187 ballot measure taking away key education and health services would likely pass this year as well, although the long-term effect for the Republican Party with Latino voters, the largest growing voting constituency, would likely be catastrophic.
But in any event, Schwarzenegger, who acknowledges voting for Prop 187 in 1994, no longer supports it, memorably declaring a year before he ran for governor — when the recall was on no one’s mind — in a 2002 appearance at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco that he “would never stand in the way of a child going to school.”
What Schwarzenegger has laid out this morning will not satisfy the very politically correct left, whose overzealous members bridle at great length at the very use of the commonly accepted term “illegal immigration.”
It certainly won’t be welcomed by advocates of a de facto open border policy. Nor will it satisfy the hardcore zealots on the other end of the spectrum, who seek to demonize illegal immigrants, to bizarrely turn the act of wanting a better life and the willingness to work for it into a serious criminal act worthy of felony sanctions. But it may, for all its incompleteness, mark a good starting point, especially for Republicans.
Read 
| Comments (0) |
Good for Schwarzeneger, this is intelligent. Now we just have to wait for poor Phil Angelides to say something. He is probably tied up in knots with all his promises to all those special interest groups he placed himself in hock to.
“‘But it may, for all its incompleteness, mark a good starting point, especially for Republicans”
I hope he is signaling I am not “Wilson” on this issue…and it means as Westly takes off in the polls that he cannot pull a “Wilson” without looking really desperate and hypocritical. Congress needs to provide the policy,laws and administrative guidelines on this issue, not Arnold. But I am troubled he did not articulate support of the track to citizenship like DiFi, Brownback and Graham, & McCain. He seems to have left open the door for calling for a more Kyl – like approach. Kyl called what came out of committee last night “amnesty”. It is not amnesty by a dictionary definition and certainly what was crafted is NOT amnesty by a legal definition. Amnesty is a blanket pardon, that is NOT how the committee crafted the permanent resident track/citizenship yesterday. But calling it amnesty will get certain people’s juices boiling…and Arnold appears to have left that an option. Of course, that means if Arnold goes that route and Phil is the Democratic candidate per primary, I am at least one “decline to state” that will vote… but I will leave the Guv spot blank..
Those are very good points, Barb. I think Arnold and company are leaving him substantial room for maneuver as this all plays out.
What if we had an amnesty and called it something else? Oh that’s right, we are. We’ll have to see how honest Arnold will be about a Senate Bill that includes what he claims to be against. But we already know about the press.
Bill Bradley wrote:
“The press is losing its grip on everything. What happened to the LA Times when it launched its gigantic attack on Schwarzenegger? It got its ass handed to it and went into a tailspin.”
Why should the press have a grip on anything? In my alternative world of journalism, it’s not the press’s role to create reality. Their role is to report it accurately. And you do that by using the tool of the trade, language, in its standard form not by subscribing to tendentious invention.
By the way, according the Sen. Cornyn, the vote to reduce the felony sanctions in the house failed because Democrats voted against it 191-8. After all, it was certainly a useful tool in the psuedo-debate.
Well, remember the context in which I said that. I was replying to someone who was bemoaning the “control” of the press.
That’s very interesting information about the felony sanctions vote.
Sen. Cornyn, the vote to reduce the felony sanctions in the house failed because Democrats voted against it 191-8.
Mr. Bradley, Just as an FYI -the House vote count spread like wild -fire thru what you would call the pro-illegal immigrant network and it rang Alarm Bells…a Republican coming up with a strident bill only addressing security, calling for illegal immigrants to be felons, well it would not be all that surprising to this group of advocates. But the voting count result which was interpreted in a variety of ways ,raised everyone’ s antenna…as it should have.
While I’m currently under a heavy load over at Wilshire Gas, I just wanted to take a moment for us and give props to Bill for running this weblog and keeping us aware and informed.
Additional props must be given for how unintrusive it is to make comments, unlike those other “Flash”-y sites.
And of course, props to us for not making Bill have to institute such restrictions by keeping the conversation clean (I would have said intelligent, but in some cases that would just be a lie).
Thanks, Bill!
This is an important op-ed. Whatever Congress comes up with, he has distanced himself from it on his own terms. Sure everyone knows he’s an immigrant, but it helps to remind people of his expertise on this at this important time. (Let’s pretend legal voters read the paper for a moment.)
Sen. McCain is making the rounds pushing his own definition of “amnesty”. Basically he is saying he tricked everyone because when he says this is not amnesty, he is using the word in the legal technical way, not what most people think of when hearing amnesty. Yay more word games. Just build the freaking wall. Er, I mean fence.
Gospodin Bierko, hope that heavy load at Wilshire Gas is lifted.
Athlon, I think this is a solid move for Arnold which puts him in the direction of what most people can consider to be good policy and good politics. Perhaps in that order.
“- Sen. John McCain insists that immigration legislation passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday night does not grant amnesty to the estimated 11 million immigrants currently living in this country illegally.
“Amnesty is forgiveness,” McCain, R-Ariz., told “Good Morning America.” “This is payment of a fine. This is admission of guilt. … This is earned citizenship, that’s what it is.”"
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1775805&page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1775773
The Democrats voted against the amendment to reduce felony sanctions in the bill to make it appear more draconian?
I think that’s right from what they’re writing.
Ann, there are obviously a great deal of politics at play here. I am sure there were a variety of reasons and motives for the way people voted . I have not heard the one that was voiced here until now. But I can tell you that the enforcement-only House bill, was introduced on December 6, 2005, and to the dismay and shock of my “pro-permanently- here- illegal immigrant” network, the bill was debated by the full House just two days later! This is almost unheard of especially as this is such a complicated issue. Add to that Frist’s behavior and you have a great many conspiracy theories and mistrust at play here on all sides. The Judiciary Committee under Specter’s leadership, and having McCain-Kennedy to work with basically saved the day thus far from all this being a total disaster. I have great faith in the Senate but reconciliation a bill with House will be difficult.
Bill, thanks for putting our politicians on the spot regarding these issues during the last couple of days. I was heartened by Westly’s response, surprised by Angelides’ lack of one, and troubled by Arnold’s ambiguous piece this morning.
Speaking of which, I interpreted some of Arnold’s op-ed a little differently than you did…
Arnold says, “Granting citizenship to people who are here illegally is not just amnesty … it’s anarchy. We are a country of immigrants, yes. But we are also a nation of laws. People who want to be citizens will want to do it the right way.”
This doesn’t leave the door open for a solution like McCain-Kennedy. Arnold is aligning himself with Kyl and Bush, agreeing that the only appropriate method for immigrants to become citizens is to have them return to their country of origin and go through the appropriate channels (which he infers is “the right way”).
There is a clear difference between what Arnold is talking about here and what Westly supports. Westly openly agrees with McCain-Kennedy. Westly is a businessman, and he seems to understand that our economy relies on immigrant labor. This issue is far too important to just play politics. Those who argue illegal immigration “hurts the middle class” obviously don’t have a background in economics.
Which leads me to Angelides. Has he commented on this whole situation yet? Do you think he was just feigning ignorance when he didn’t know what HR 4437 was, or is this part of a calculated strategy? Either way, it’s disappointing.
Nice. So how are the LA School District and those 10 Emergency Rooms closed in recent years in the LA area doing?
This issue is far too important to just play politics. Those who argue illegal immigration “hurts the middle class” obviously don’t have a background in economics.
Public hospitals such as County-USC and Harbor/UCLA medical centers closed to ambulances an average of about 20 hours a day while some private hospitals — including Pasadena’s Huntington Hospital, Bellflower Medical Center and Lynwood’s St. Francis Medical Center — closed for 12 hours or more. – LA Times, March 9
Mike, very good points. You’ve identified another area, I think, in which Arnold has left himself some running room. “The right way” is what the question is. Does he think people should have to leave before they can return? I don’t know. Personally, I doubt it, but I don’t know.
Athlon, who wrote that in the LA Times?
Bill – I link, you decide. The “10 ERs” thing is my own research.
ERs Increasingly Shutting Doors to Ambulances
Athlon: consider the opportunity cost of sending the immigrants here illegally back to where they came from. Sure, you might keep the ER open for another hour or two, but you’re also going to take away a labor force that is absolutely essential for many of our companies to remain competitive. Send our immigrants back home and you run the risk of sending middle class jobs overseas right alongside them. Ask any economist worth their weight and they will tell you the same.
Immigration as it is occurring mostly hurts the lower class. Paul Krugman gave his tortured admission of this reality yesterday:
“ I’m instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration. But a review of serious, nonpartisan research reveals some uncomfortable facts about the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in particular.”
But some of the middle-class is hurt and not because just because there is downward wage pressure in some jobs that immigrants are taking that used to be seen as a path to the middle-class. The great unspoken cost for some, which is a benefit for others, is housing costs.
Immigrants need housing and that creates a demand that isn’t met in the regulatory morass and anti-development politics that exist, especially in the blue-state coastal regions. Economists viewing it through their amoral lens tend to see just the whole effect and count it as a positive. A study cited by Celia Munoz of La Raza this week on a CSPAN rally did just that. “Rethinking the Gains from Immigration” can be found on the web.
But of course the benefit from rising housing values only accrues to you if you have one (or more). And to realize the real increased value from housing assets and maintain their market value requires a corresponding cost of real value to someone who buys them. Someone’s real gain is someone else’s real loss. And I know people in the middle-class that don’t have houses and their kids’ path in to the middle-class will face that obstacle too.
You see this issue talked about in the financial analysis of home development companies but it is virtually ignored in the press. The reality is without the population pressures that come from immigration, housing costs never would have spiked as they have. Very little development would be required to keep a supply that would severely constrain the ability of sellers to raise prices.
This isn’t all of the effects. There are fiscal costs, especially at a state level that the National Research Council put at about $1200 a year per California native household and that was calculated at much lower immigration levels. How that affects you depend on your position. Of course paying $500,000 for a home in California not only will take a large amount of your income in house payments. You will also pay property taxes in far in excess of what most people do to pay for those fiscal costs of immigration.
Mike – that “cheap labor needed to keep U.S. companies competitive” argument is an urban myth. Nearly all of the factories and outsourceable jobs have been outsourced already. Illegal immigrant labor performs domestic service work that is not outsourceable — you cannot send construction, landscaping and agricultural work overseas. U.S. citizens are capable and willing to do this work if there was a living wage associated with those jobs.
Big business wants to import cheap labor becuase they can’t outsource it. ‘Polls show a strong majority of Republican voters oppose amnesty for those in the country illegally, but business groups, a core GOP constituency, want to assure a supply of low-wage workers for agriculture, construction, restaurant, and other services.’ from CS Monitor.
Once again the Republicans sell us out to big business.
This concern for the well-being of these companies which hire illegals is preposterously insincere. Let these companies figure out their own stupid labor problems. Maybe they will have to purchase TV commercials like McDonalds used to do to find employees. I used to work in fast-food, and cut lawns for money. Big deal.
Washington Post actually ran an article warning of the horror of manicures no longer costing $10. Give me a break. Unhappy consumers?! Are we really such pansies?
Significantly higher wages might work, but that increase would be passed on to unhappy consumers, forcing Americans to give up under-$10 manicures and $15-per-hour paint and lawn jobs. — WaPo, March 27
Thank you for some sanity, James. It saved me from having to immediately respond to the asinine comment below.
“Those who argue illegal immigration “hurts the middle class” obviously don’t have a background in economics.”
Glad to be of service, Rich. I hate it when facts get lost in the fray.
The conservatives really outmanuevered the liberals in Congress. The GOP was vulnerable on border security — despite all the attention to ‘war on terror’ and homeland security, the Administration left the southern border wide open and porous. Borders and ports was an issue that the Dems could have used in the upcoming elections. Now, in the Senate, its the conservatives arguing for border security and the libs are made to look weak on border security. GOP snatched the issue right out of the Dems hands.
Nonsense! the Frist bill is going down the tubes, as it should. Frist was only playing Presidential politics with it not thinking about this country. The House Rep leadership is already working quietly on a COMPEHENSIVE APPROACH to this issue.
hello! http://www.dirare.com/Sweden/ online directory. SMART Yellow Pages, About DIRare, Search in Business Category. From online directory .
Dave…
Interesting topic… I’m working in this industry myself and I don’t agree about this in 100%, but I added your page to my bookmarks and hope to see more interesting articles in the future…
Dave…
Interesting topic… I’m working in this industry myself and I don’t agree about this in 100%, but I added your page to my bookmarks and hope to see more interesting articles in the future…