W visas? What are they smoking in Washington these days?

I first heard about "W visas" on NPR this morning. Noodling around the Intertubes, I found this April 1 report on Slate attempting to explain the concept.

In a nutshell (and this truly is nuts) the idea is that employers who heretofore have relied on illegal immigrants as a substantial component of their workforce -- in the meat-packing industry, say -- will instead use workers who enter the country on these W visas. Unlike many other visa programs, this W visa will be geared specifically to the unskilled laborer, the guy who will supposedly take only 'jobs no American wants.'

This would be a great deal for the immigrant worker (we're not supposed to say 'guest workers') who would be in this country legally, with the opportunity to seek permanent resident status when the visa expires, and thus on a path to citizenship.

This would be a great idea -- if it weren't so obviously stupid.

Look: The statement that there are jobs that Americans won't take is a lame, transparently fraudulent lie. The truth is that restaurant chains and big box stores and meat packers don't want to hire Americans. They don't want to have to pay minimum wage. Thus, they hire illegals -- often through intermediaries, pretending to 'contract out' for certain services. However they hire them, our big businesses pay the illegals next to nothing -- and thereby squeeze out maximum profits. Why not? No one goes to jail for hiring illegals.

Does any sane person think that the MBA's who have perpetrated this fraud for decades are going to hire people with W visas and pay normal wages and benefits?

No, they're going to continue to hire illegals as long as they can find them, from wherever they can get them. And desperately poor people from Mexico and Central America are going to continue lining up for these jobs because $5 an hour or even $3 an hour is better than $1.50 a day back home. Every now and again, a bunch of poor slobs who wanted nothing more than to better their lives and the lives of their children will be rounded up and deported, just like now, while the greedy, selfish bastards who exploit them replace them without a backward glance -- or the least fear of meaningful legal sanction.

And if you think that immigration "reform" will result in meaningful penalties against the big businesses that benefit from illegal immigration, you're just as high as the lunatics in Washington.

The Right wants secure borders; the Left wants fair wages and an end to exploitation of immigrants. But they don't need "reform." They just need to enforce some of the laws they already have on the books: Put some MBA's in jail. Have a few Fortune 500 CEOs do the 'perp walk' on the evening news. It's already a crime to hire illegal workers and pay them less than minimum wage. Enforce these laws!

This would dry up demand for illegals -- illegal immigration would slow (maybe only the drug runners would have incentive to cross the border after this) -- and opportunities would open up for our kids to get jobs again. The busboy at your neighborhood restaurant might again be your neighbor's teenage son.

Senate hammers out bipartisan path to citizenship for illegals, promises to tighten borders. What could be wrong with that?

Hey look, Congress may be about to do something! Stop the presses! Ring the bells!

A bipartisan group of U.S. Senators has announced a 'tough but fair' path to citizenship for illegals already in this country, a plan that, according to an editorial in this morning's Chicago Sun-Times, accommodates the Republicans' demand to secure "the border against future illegal immigration." Over in the House, former Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan has also indicated a willingness to consider immigration reform.

So what could be wrong with this?

Plenty.

Where in these proposals are tough penalties against employers who lure illegals over the border with promises of employment? Where is the enforcement now? Every big company in America has exposure on this, restaurants and banks and hotels and retailers and manufacturers. And, yet, no gringo goes to jail.

Here's how it works in the real world: José sneaks across the border, finding a job at a factory in Iowa, and sends money home to his mother each month. When José's employer is ready to hire, he gets the word to José: We have more jobs coming open. José lets the folks back home in his village know -- and a new northward surge begins.

José and his once and future neighbors make more than they would have made at home -- and the jefe Americano pays them far less than he'd have to pay Americans. El jefe doesn't have to worry about unions or overtime or insurance or anything. If an employee gets out of line, he can cut him loose faster than he can say, "I'm shocked to find you don't have a green card, son."

Meanwhile, our own young people can't find entry level employment because the minimum wage is insufficient to feed a family (which, of course, is true -- but irrelevant when considering the parlous employment prospects of the all-American teenager).

I don't blame José for coming here. José and his fellow villagers are doing what our parents, grandparents or great-grandparents did, and for the same reasons: José wants a better life for himself and his family. His neighbors want the same. So did our ancestors. That's what America is all about, darn it.

I do blame the cynical store owners, restaurant owners, factory owners -- los jefes Americanos -- who flaunt the laws about hiring illegals knowing there's no consequence for their crimes -- and lots of opportunity for profit.

And I blame Congress for not going after the bosses... many of whom are contributing some of their profits back to the politicians who allow them to continue doing what they're doing.

Congress is acting -- if it really does act -- here for the most cynical of reasons: It's all about votes. Republicans are interested in immigration reform all of a sudden because Mitt Romney got so little Hispanic support. He's got Mexican relatives -- but few Hispanic votes. Meanwhile, the Democrats see José and his ilk as Future Democrats of America. Once they tread the 'path to citizenship,' however long, Democrats are betting they'll become a virtually captive constituency, at least in the big cities, just as African-Americans already are.

But neither party wants to upset the corporations that profit from illegals... so here's what's going to happen.

If José registers for citizenship, his boss would have to start paying him minimum wage, paying employment taxes, paying Medicare and Social Security. José may be a great worker, and in some cases it'll work out, but there's probably a good chance he'll get tossed out on his kiester. Not immediately, perhaps, but as soon as possible.

José's kinfolk will get the message: Don't register. And, if they do, well, there's a lot more villages in Mexico. And we'll have a sudden surplus of unskilled Spanish-speaking workers who were making a living, now forced on a path to dependency.

Here's what should happen: José registers, as do all his friends and neighbors from back home now working at the factory. ICE comes in and charges the boss criminally. Faced with jail and the certain loss of his business, the boss suddenly decides that he can keep José et al. on board after all, even when he is forced to pay an appropriate wage. Some bosses do go to jail. Getting a few Forbes 500 CEO's in a perp walk on the evening news will convince their brothers and sisters to take hiring and wage laws seriously.

This is a Main Street issue. Wall Street benefits more from and (carefully removed from direct contact by several layers of subcontractors) treats illegals worse than the small business-owners left on Main Street. Republicans are trying to shed the label of the Stupid Party. But "No Longer the Stupid Party" is not a particularly positive name. As part of a plan to become the Party of Main Street, not the Lackeys of Wall Street, the Republicans should insist on aggressive enforcement of immigration laws -- existing and proposed -- against employers.

That's the way to have real reform. That's the way to help José -- and all the rest of us, too.

Sonia Sotomayor... activist?

That's what our friends on the Right are shouting this morning: Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a (gasp) judicial activist!

Meanwhile, our brothers and sisters on the Left see in Judge Sotomayor a powerful symbol of ethnic empowerment: If confirmed, Sotomayor would become the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court.

The first, that is, except, perhaps, for Benjamin Cardozo, whose Jewish ancestors were probably driven out of Portugal... winding up, via Holland, in America... before the Revolution.

Judge Sotomayor, you will hear repeatedly in the coming weeks and months, grew up poor in the Bronx, raised by her mother after her father died when she was only nine years old. Her personal story is a powerful example of the American Dream, still working. I'll bet even Fox News concedes that point.

Judge Sotomayor graduated from the Bronx to Princeton, and thence to Yale Law School, where she was an editor of the Law Review. (In a lot of schools, if a kid 'makes' law review, he or she is automatically an 'editor.' It does not mean that she was necessarily telling the law professors submitting articles how to correct their punctuation. You will be entirely unsurprised to learn that I have no first-hand knowledge of how things work at Yale.)

The good news, I suppose, is that Sotomayor didn't clerk for another Supreme Court Justice before donning judicial robes herself. Instead, after finishing at Yale in 1979, she went to work in the New York County District Attorney's office for roughly five years. Wikipedia says that, while in the D.A.'s office, Sotomayor "prosecuted robberies, assaults, murders, police brutality, and child pornography cases."

Maybe D.A.'s rise faster in New York than in Chicago: Here it might be expected for a talented lawyer in our State's Attorney's Office to make it to a felony courtroom in five years... but not as the first chair. I wonder how much actual trial experience she has....

Sotomayor stayed in the D.A.'s office for five years. She then moved on to the private sector -- again, this is something of an improvement over recent SCOTUS nominees in that she has drawn a private sector salary for at least a brief interval.

Wikipedia tells us that, in 1984, Sotomayor went to Pavia & Harcourt. That's a link to the firm's current website. There, you will find the firm describing itself as "a business law firm, concentrating in commercial and corporate law, banking, media and entertainment, real estate, litigation and arbitration, intellectual property, estate planning and administration, and immigration services." The firm boasts having lawyers fluent in Italian, French, Portuguese and Spanish, providing "a full range of legal services to companies, individuals, and Italian and French governmental organizations and agencies."

But Sotomayor stayed there only six years, making partner at some point during this time. In late 1991, Sotomayor was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to a vacancy in the Southern District of New York. At the time, Sotomayor was the youngest federal judge in the district and the first Hispanic federal judge to serve in New York State. (If you insist on bringing up Cardozo again, remember he was a state court judge until he joined the U.S. Supreme Court.) President Clinton nominated Sotomayor to the seat she now holds in 1997.

Judge Sotomayor was married briefly, shortly after finishing college. The marriage ended in 1983 and produced no children.

Let's add this up, shall we? Including the better part of a year that it took to get her confirmed to the District Court, Sotomayor was a practicing lawyer for 12 or 13 years. At best, only 7 or 8 of those years were in the private sector. She's been on the bench for the last 17.

If we're going to put people on the Supreme Court because of their compelling personal stories, Judge Sotomayor's mother, Celina, might have made a better candidate: Widowed at a young age, she not only raised her daughter to become a federal jurist, she got her son through medical school.

President Obama said he wanted his justices of the Supreme Court to have 'empathy.' Empathy is the ability to imagine one's self in the other guy's shoes. It doesn't mean identifying with, or sympathizing with a group or with "The People" in the abstract. An empathetic person who says, "I know how you feel," probably does. Empathy doesn't come from imagination alone; it comes from shared experience.

Judge Sotomayor has been in the federal cloister for nearly two decades. She hasn't had to deal with getting kids off to school. She's not had to deal with a child's bad report card, or with the kid who stays out too late or drinks at a party. She hasn't had to teach a kid to drive. She hasn't had to relate to other moms at a soccer or baseball game. As a long-serving federal judge she's used to receiving deference from those around her. She hasn't gone to a PTA meeting and been ruled out of order by the chair. Who tells her "no"?

Clearly, Judge Sotomayor has faced down some significant challenges in her life: She has Type I diabetes. She lost her father at a young age. But does she have enough experience of the real world? Or is she just another judicial careerist with an Ivy League resume? And haven't we had enough of that?

Driving privileges for illegal aliens -- or -- We have met the enemy and he is us

The Chicago Tribune reports that the Illinois House has passed a bill that would effectively provide drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants. The document wouldn't be called a driver's license -- it would be a special driver's permit -- but it would allow people who are not legal residents to legally drive on our streets. The bill is not yet law; it is now going to the State Senate for consideration.

This is a link to the General Assembly's website, showing the status of the bill and its sponsors. The actual text of the bill can be ascertained by following the links from this site.

This is not the first attempt by Illinois lawmakers to deal with the presence of illegal aliens among us. The Consular Identification Document Act, 5 ILCS 230/1, et seq. became effective on January 1, 2006. Essentially this act allows State and local agencies to accept identification cards issued by foreign consulates as proof of identity. Section 10(b) of the Act provides, "A consular identification document shall be accepted for purposes of identification only and does not convey an independent right to receive benefits of any type." Section 10(c) provides, "A consular identification document may not be accepted as identification for obtaining a driver's license or registering to vote." And Section 10(d) provides, "A consular identification document does not establish or indicate lawful U.S. immigration status and may not be viewed as valid for that purpose, nor does a consular identification document establish a foreign national's right to be in the United States or remain in the United States."

Thus, the matricula consular issued by the Mexican Consulate can not be used -- yet -- to obtain a driver's license... but it is designated by the State of Illinois as a lawful form of identification. Banks or credit card issuers can accept it. School districts must accept it. The police must accept it as a valid ID.

And can you guess a group that is loudly in support of this latest proposed accommodation for illegal aliens? Why police groups of course! This kind of documentation may make fewer drivers do stupid things during routine traffic stops. It may encourage more people to get insurance, to get safety inspections for their cars, it may cut into the black market for phony driver's licenses.

I know there are those who fear that aliens -- Mexicans in particular, because of their proximity -- are just colonizing the United States -- just taking over, completely overriding local authority like the barbarian tribes that took over huge swaths of the Western Roman Empire in its last years.

But I submit the following to you, ladies and gentlemen: This is just an example of how federalism works -- or doesn't work.

The State of Illinois has no right to control who lives here. It has to find ways to cope with the reality that now exists. It is the Federal government that is in charge of the national borders... and... for a variety of reasons... cynical, financial, political, the Federal government does not stop the flow of illegals across the borders.

This is not something new. It is not a Republican thing. It is a truly bipartisan national policy: There is a deeply held belief in the most important circles that the steady flow of immigrants is necessary to the health of the economy.

Of course, we could change our laws to conform the statutes to the reality that we see around us: To allow those who are sneaking across our borders to come here legally.

But -- and here's the rub -- if we did that, we'd have to pay them.

Our cynical politicians raise the minimum wage knowing that some Americans will lose their jobs because of it -- knowing that the pool for teenagers and other legal entry-level workers will shrink -- because there are plenty of Josés and Marias out there who will work for $4 an hour and never dare ask for a raise.

And some people blame the illegals. I don't. I suspect that most immigrants today -- even the illegals -- are not fundamentally different from those of our grandparents’ time. They come here to become Americans. To build a better life for themselves and their children. It's us — we Americans — who are different.

We don't want to give up our cheap lawn care. Or live-in nannies. We like dining out -- a lot -- so much that restaurants are springing up on every corner. Who's washing the dishes? Who's busing the tables? We don't care who's cleaning the stores at night. We're bargain conscious: If José and Maria will do these jobs for $4 an hour -- or, better still, $3.50 -- we say hooray.

We complain that not all immigrants learn English. And they don't. But I know I could never acquire real fluency in Spanish (I speak the John Wayne dialect) -- even if I were to move tomorrow to Mexico City. The late Pope John Paul II was a gifted linguist. But not all of us are.

The real problem is that we -- we Americans -- do not insist that the immigrants' children learn English. We Americans are squeamish about imposing our culture on people who come here. Hello? Why do you think they came? They came to be part of our culture -- just as your grandparents did.

I do not believe that immigrants coming here today want to recreate Poland or or Pakistan or Mexico or Ghana on these shores. Although I’m sure there may be exceptions, for the most part, they want to be Americans, just as our grandparents did. But Americans don't seem to know what an "American" is anymore.

We -- we Americans -- no longer celebrate being American (without hyphens). We celebrate our diverse heritage instead.

When my kids were in the Catholic grammar school, they were each (in turn) given an assignment: Write about your heritage and put "your country’s flag" on the cover.

And the first time it happened I tried to dig in my heels. You can write about your Irish ancestors or your Cuban ones, I said, but you put the Stars and Stripes on your cover because that's the flag of your country -- but that would only have gotten the child in trouble.

So when today's immigrants keep their languages and customs, at least at home, aren't they doing what the other Americans are doing? What the other Americans are taught to do? Particularly when we do not "force" their children to learn our language.

We -- we Americans -- are creating these foreign-speaking ghettos; we are creating rootless, stateless populations with whom we can not even communicate directly. We must work through intermediaries -- "community leaders" -- some of whom are leading the parade to keep kids from learning English... because, if they did, they might learn they didn't need those "leaders" any more.

In the 60’s we finally faced up to the fact that not everyone was included in the great American "Melting Pot." And we overcompensated and overreacted: Instead of mixing in the missing ingredients, we have settled for an increasingly lumpy stew. We all became hyphenated.

We can't blame immigrants for that. And we can change.

America is not just a place. It is an idea -- an ideal, actually -- that an opportunity to get ahead in the world is available to all. We need a common language to share this idea, so that all Americans can participate equally -- and not through intermediaries.

Did you know that English was almost rejected as our national language in favor of German? It was a close thing -- but, at the time of the Revolution, England wasn't nearly as popular here as it is now.

So it's not that English is so special. It just happens to be the language of our country. People come here to become part of this country need to learn -- to the extent they can -- the language of this country. They need to demand and insist that their children learn the language so that they can fully participate.

And as for controlling the borders? Let's enforce our immigration laws already on the books and put employers in jail for knowingly hiring illegals. When the CEO's of Fortune 500 companies start trading in tailored suits for prison overalls we'll see a true reduction in the demand for illegal workers. If José isn't sure that he'll get a job in the meat packing plant, he won't risk his life crossing the desert. If that really hurts our economy, well, then we'll have to look at our immigration policies again, won't we?

Minimum wage hike may minimize opportunities for our teens

Warning: This post comes dangerously close to political, although I submit it is really a family and parenting issue. My perspective may be skewed; I was up late last night watching the election returns and my Internet isn’t working as this is written (obviously if you can see this, that's been remedied). But I may be unusually curmudgeonly this morning.

The Democrats have taken back the House of Representatives on a platform of (1) not liking President Bush and (2) saying the Iraq war was a big mistake.

This is not much of a platform on which to govern, so House Speaker-in-Waiting Nancy Pelosi offered, as an opening gambit, a vow to raise the minimum wage. Rod Blagojevich, newly re-elected as Governor of Illinois, has made a similar pledge.

At first blush, this seems like an easy idea to get behind: Who’s against people earning more money? (Except perhaps the plutocrats who, in theory, would be called upon to pay these higher wages – but they didn’t vote for the Democrats anyway.)

Now every time wages go up, some jobs are probably going to go away – or offshore. I recently had occasion to call a well-known computer company (we’ll call it “Dell”) about problems I was having with two different computers. Because one was a laptop and the other a desktop, my call had to be transferred – and it was transferred from India to the Philippines. I know this because I asked. I’m curious about these things; I ask a lot of questions when I make these kinds of calls.

On the other hand, if the jobs that are lost are jobs that don’t enable a full-time employee to obtain even basic housing and stay off Food Stamps and Medicaid – well, maybe such jobs are better lost. That’s a policy choice. That’s the political part that I’m not going to express an opinion on.

No, what concerns me is that, once again, there is no exemption proposed for younger workers. Teenagers. High school kids. College students. These are not people who are – by and large – supporting families. These are the kids who’d be earning mall money. Movie money. Hamburger money.

My kids have insisted for years that their peers don’t find summer work or after school work without ‘connections’ – usually parental. I’ve written about my kids’ difficulties in securing work in the Summer. And while Younger Daughter is working now at the neighborhood hardware store, one of the men with whom I share this Undisclosed Location has a son who manages that store. It probably didn’t hurt that I mentioned to my colleague that Younger Daughter was coming in for an interview.

Kids need to start someplace. And, frankly, 16 or 17 year-old kids are not ideal employees; I sure wasn’t at that age. Kids have to learn how to work – and, while the problems caused by an inexperienced teen might be tolerable at $5 per hour, they may not be worth it at $7.50.

And the minimum wage ties in also, I’ve come to believe, with illegal immigration. It has been argued that undocumented foreign workers take jobs no citizen will take – migrant farm workers, for instance. And this is true. But American teenagers traditionally cut lawns. Yet I don’t see local teenagers working for the lawn services that go through my neighborhood each week; I see foreigners. In our part of the country, they’re largely Hispanic. And while being a janitor or porter is not the most glamorous job, is it really a job that no kid will take? Then why are the cleaning services around here composed almost exclusively of foreigners? (In our area the cleaning people are largely from Poland or other parts of Eastern Europe.) Didn’t American kids once work as busboys in restaurants? I seem to recall this – but I haven’t seen any lately.

Now, I’m not checking green cards on any of these people. Each and every one of these foreign-born persons may be fully documented resident aliens, studying diligently in their off hours for the citizenship exam.

But I doubt it.

I think employers – big Fortune 500 companies and small time operators alike – are hiring illegals – directly or (particularly with the big companies) through ‘subcontractors’ – and paying less than the minimum wage, paying little or no payroll taxes, and paying no benefits. It’s so much easier than working with teens: José isn’t going to ask for Friday night off to go to the high school dance. Irina isn’t going to need every Thursday night off for choir practice. Stan doesn’t have play practices to work around. And an illegal is never going to call in sick because she broke up with her boyfriend. I'd guess that some of the plutocrats don’t care about the minimum wage because it is irrelevant to their business practices.

Of course, we could start enforcing our immigration laws. I don’t suggest mass deportations of hard-working people who are trying to get their own piece of the American dream – this happens from time to time, and these unfortunates are promptly replaced by equally eager, and equally illegal, aliens. No, if we start jailing the people who hire the illegals, we would then create an incentive for employers to think about alternate hiring schemes. Such as hiring teens and stiching together part-time schedules. However, when executives from big companies start going to jail for hiring illegal aliens, run to your windows: You’ll see pigs flying by. Lots and lots of pigs flying by.


So I suggest an alternative: Raise the minimum wage if that’s appropriate – but create an exemption for people under 21. Or for full-time students under 23. Something. The market will take it from there: And our kids will find jobs when they go looking.