Position Justifications

National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers

Statement in Support of Our Position Against Illegal Immigration
Every sovereign nation, in order to protect its citizens, has the right and the duty to control who enters, passes through, or remains within its borders. Only United States citizens have a right to enter and remain in the United States. All others are granted this privilege through various acts of the Congress.

We wish to state immediately that there is no bias, ethnic, racial, or national, in our position. We recognize that those from Mexico who are in the United States illegally, while highly visible, are only a part of the problem. Calling these positions "racist" or "xenophobic" are simply loser's arguments, the last resort of those who cannot think about issues. It's not about race; it's about a nation's right to make its own decisions about what is good for it, not have them dictated by anyone who can break the law.

The U.S. has traditionally adopted immigration laws aimed at protecting us in four areas. To the nation's demonstrable detriment, we have ignored those reasons for forty years and more. We now pay the price.

Public safety - Criminals (variously described over the years) may not enter the U.S. legally or remain here absent extraordinary permission. Alien criminals have become so common that they contribute heavily to crime statistics, and they are a very expensive portion of the population of all our prisons (statistics available upon request). If our immigration laws were rigorously enforced we could reduce the impact of criminal aliens on our society. A secure border is the first line of defense. However, there must be vigorous follow-up with interior enforcement.

Public health - At one time carriers of contagious diseases, or those afflicted with diseases affecting their ability to support themselves, were not allowed to enter the U.S. Now we see aliens with diseases seldom found among Americans in recent history working in service positions, such as waiters, cooks, housekeepers, or even domestic servants. Aliens by the thousand avail themselves of U.S. medical care, with the burden borne by the taxpayer - many come here specifically for that purpose. While it may be good for them and for us that they be healthy while they are here amongst us, it is not good that they be here at all.

Jobs - Like any other commodity, sweat becomes cheaper as it becomes more available. A surfeit of cheap labor cannot help but depress wages. At this time illegal aliens are filling, not just traditional jobs in agriculture (which is no small thing - within our recollections Americans did that work until they were priced out of the market), but unskilled or low-skilled jobs in service, construction, and industry. This is happening at a time when tens of thousands of jobs are being sent overseas.

Employers argue that they need to have cheap labor to compete with foreign companies. Well, perhaps - that is a subject for discussion beyond the scope of this paper, and if it is true it can be addressed by law. But there are products and services that do not face foreign competition - drywall for an American house, for example, cannot be hung in China. Those jobs are becoming all the more precious in our country and those employers should pay what the untainted domestic labor market would demand. American workers should not have their wages depressed by foreign competition within their own borders, but they do.

National Security. Need we say anything other than "September 11, 2001"? While that was a spectacular, tragic example, it is far from the only example -- but it should be enough to make this point: We must guard our borders closely.

Statement in Support of Our Position Against Amnesty
Backers of a plan to permit aliens who are here illegally to remain here wish that their program were not referred to as "amnesty". However, the term is commonly understood by both the public and those who would benefit from it, so we will use it.

All of us who are endorsing this position paper have vivid recollections of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. We note that most of the arguments made now for reform echo precisely those made then.

Many of us participated in its administration, and saw first-hand its defects. We list them here.

Rampant Fraud. Then, as is similarly proposed now, applicants for amnesty had to have been in the U.S. for certain periods, or had to have worked in the U.S. for certain periods. By the literal hundreds of thousands they submitted fraudulent documents showing presence in the U.S. or employment in agriculture during the requisite periods. No statistics on how much fraud there was were kept, but anecdotal evidence at the time from some offices indicated that it was as high as thirty percent.

Absent absolute proof of fraud, which in practical terms meant an admission from the applicant, it was expected by program management in Washington that applications would be approved. An office with too many denials was subject to close scrutiny.

Fraud discovered in an application was not grounds for deportation. An applicant was, to all intents and purposes, immune from enforcement action based on fraud in his application or anything discovered in the amnesty process. There were cases where a criminal background was discovered, but that could not form the basis for deportation proceedings because the process was privileged - an alien could not be deported for anything he revealed in an application. Furthermore, as long as his application was pending, he was, for all practical purposes, immune from deportation except on criminal grounds discovered independent of the application.

Thousands of people went into the lucrative, low-risk business of creating and selling fraudulent documents. Thousands of employers provided fraudulent documents to alien employees to enable them to stay here to continue working, and still other thousands provided documents to aliens in what they saw as a humanitarian gesture.

We leave it to the reader to decide what the impact of such illegality has on the fabric of the nation, especially when it forms the basis for an individual's legal status here.

Judicial extension of the program. Congress passed the 1986 Act anticipating that certain defined classes of aliens would benefit. Those decisions were made through political compromises, which is how the nation runs. However, interest groups who believed their interests were not adequately served took dozens of cases to court, shopping carefully for judges whom they believed would be sympathetic to them. Those lawsuits became class actions that resulted in the benefits of amnesty being extended far beyond what Congress defined. The results were so far-reaching that it was not until last year, 2005, that the final cases went to rest. We see no reason to suspect that a new amnesty would be any different.

Chain migration. This is the phrase used to describe the practice of immigrants coming legally to this country based on their relationship to someone already here legally. Anecdotes indicate that the U.S. Department of State, which issues visas, believes that six family members ultimately follow to join each alien who achieves legal status here. An amnesty for ten million people may, over time, increase our population by seventy million.

Statement in Support of Our Position in Favor of Employer Sanctions
Recognizing that jobs are the primary factor drawing aliens illegally to our country, in 1986 the Congress wrote employer sanctions into the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

In brief, the law requires (it is still in effect, although moribund as a practical matter) that every employer confirm, by examination of documents, two things about any person before he is hired; his identity, and his eligibility to work legally in this country. He must make record of the documents examined. If the job applicant cannot prove both, he is not to be hired. Failure to examine those documents is grounds for enforcement action from warnings to criminal prosecution.

The theory is stronger than the actual effect. As we see nationwide, illegal aliens by the millions have jobs. This is due to a number of factors:

Easy availability of fraudulent documents. For a near-nominal fee (commonly under fifty dollars; often closer to ten), an illegal alien can purchase documents purporting to identify him and prove legal status in the U.S. They present them to employers with impunity, knowing that their chances of being detected are slim, and if it happens, their chances of being arrested are slimmer still, and their chances of being prosecuted or otherwise penalized for it are nil.

Inability of employers to verify validity of documents. There is no mechanism in place that allows an employer to verify that documents presented to him are valid. At best, he may, months later, receive a report from the Social Security Administration that a number and name on a card presented to him do not go together, but that is not an effective deterrent.

Reckless disregard of the law by employers. As a practical matter, due to low enforcement priorities, an employer need not fear being discovered violating the law. And if found out he will not be penalized unless the violation is by demonstrable design, and involves large numbers of aliens on a repeated basis.

Judicial or political interference with enforcement. This is the major factor, for it affects all the others. Time after time the agency has undertaken effective actions against one employer or another, or even classes of employers, who are flagrant violators of the law. And far too often that very effectiveness is a death warrant for the effort. Congressmen or Senators representing the affected party suggest to the agency that it desist, or face unpleasant bureaucratic or budgetary consequences. Judges tie officers up in court and enjoin elements of the effort, or the effort itself. Finally one gets the message: lay off. The wise officer turns his efforts to more fruitful, less painful operations, and a program dies.

The problem then, is not law; there are all the legal tools needed, dating back to 1986.

What the nation must do in this connection is:

Increase the risks for presenting fraudulent documents.
Make it possible, quick, and easy for employers to check the eligibility for employment of a job applicant. Legislators should support HR 98 and the REAL ID ACT, HR418, which establish a means to do that.
Levy administrative fines against aliens who present fraudulent documents. We note that that law is on the books, it has been since 1990, but in our collective recollection, it was never used to any significant degree. This is potentially a very valuable tool, in that it removes the profit from illegal employment.
Increase the risks for employers who willfully or recklessly ignore the law. That will require increased enforcement personnel in the interior. It will also be necessary in some way to rein in judicial activity in civil cases filed with the design of inhibiting the program. And members of Congress must become less active in protecting their constituents who do wrong from legitimate enforcement actions.

As with any law, it is not the severity of sanction for violation, but the certainty of it that makes it effective.

As an aside, we note here that much has been made of the point that the nation cannot deport ten or eleven or twelve or however many million illegal aliens. That is probably true, considering the nature of our society (which we treasure no less than anyone else), but it is also a straw man in the argument.

We do not have to deport each and every one. There need not be massive sweeps and knocks on doors at midnight. Remove the impetus for the illegals to be here and most of them will eventually go home. It requires, not a severe blow, but relentless, gentle pressure to bring it about. Jobs are the most effective pressure point.

Statement in Support of Our Position in Favor of a Temporary Worker Program
First, we wish to say emphatically that we find the phrase “Work Americans won't do” demeaning to the American worker. Americans have done every type of work now done by illegal aliens (including some of it done by signers of this document), and Americans would do it again if they were paid a decent wage. They have been priced out of the labor market in many fields by cheap sweat, and that is a national disgrace made worse by insulting statements.

That being said, the United States supposedly is in a period of full employment now, even allowing for the presence of numbers of illegal aliens variously estimated to be between nine and twelve million. Labor is in short supply.

What this means to the American employer is that he must find willing hands where he can. This economic pressure has led to him hiring without due regard to the immigration status of his employees. If employer sanctions are to function as desired, then the ethical employer must be given an economic safety valve when he finds himself in genuine, demonstrable need of workers.

That safety valve should take the form of a guest worker program.

There is precedent. In 1942 the U.S. government allowed the entry of Mexican workers (called braceros) to work in agriculture and on railroad track repair crews, critical jobs left vacant by Americans who went to war. The railroad program terminated with the end of the war in 1945, but the agricultural program was carried on until 1964. It died amid claims of fraud in payment of wages and mistreatment of workers. Its legacy of cheap agricultural wages is with us still.

There is further precedent in the H-2A agricultural labor program, which has been used primarily to support agriculture on the east coast.

Each of those programs had flaws, weaknesses, and abuses by all parties. Carefully crafted legislation can deal with each problem � we can learn from experience if we will.

So, in general terms based on knowledge of what has gone before, we believe:

An employer who can credibly demonstrate that he cannot obtain unskilled workers in adequate numbers to fill his needs at a reasonable, living wage, should be allowed to bring them to this country under contract to work for him, and him alone. This will not be a simple program to design or administer, but with regard to previous experience, it can be done.

He must post a bond with the government for each worker, guaranteeing that it will not fall to the government to locate and remove the individual.

He must provide a living wage to assure that his employees do not become a public burden. For the same reason, he must provide health insurance and pay into the workman's compensation program for each employee.

An alien worker is admitted to work for a particular employer for a specified time, with the understanding that he must depart upon completion of the contract. To maintain a degree of control over that, a significant portion of his wages must be paid into an escrow account in a U.S. bank, to be released to him only after he reports to a U.S. consulate abroad.
He is ineligible to draw upon any public source of income or support under any circumstances except workman's compensation.
His presence here does not provide any justification for the entry of family members to join him.
Failure to abide by the terms of his contract and terms of admission to the U.S. will result in his deportation and disqualification for any legal status for some specified period of time.

Such a program must not be seen as a source of cheap labor for the employer, but simply as a stopgap to fill his need when workers are otherwise unavailable at a reasonable, living wage.

At such time as employment should fall below the full level, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, (and it will, eventually), this program should be reexamined.