Immigration reform debate should be civil -- and productive

As discussion begins again Monday on the volatile subject ofreforming the nation's immigration laws, President Bush is urgingCongress to have a "civil debate" on a variety of proposals beingfloated in the days ahead.

We'd like to see a lot more than civility -- as in leadership andresults -- rather than election-year posturing and another round ofdialogue to nowhere.

Reform talk basically centers on three areas: a "guest worker"program that allows foreign workers in the country temporarily, butlegally; tightening border security via more border patrol agents;and tougher employer sanctions for hiring illegal immigrants.

Actually, all three are in effect now. But they aren't working tothe extent necessary to control a flood of illegal immigration.

Congress has approved legislation to add 10,000 border patrolagents in the next five years. Funding them will be anotherchallenge. According to the Houston Chronicle last month, Bush's 2006budget proposal would only fund 210 new agents.

Some advocate totally sealing the southern border to controlillegal immigration from Mexico -- perhaps even to the extreme ofwalling it off. But if we do that, we'd better take down the Statueof Liberty on New York's Ellis Island because we would have a hugecontradiction of what this country is all about.

Employer sanctions were part of earlier reform efforts. What'sbeing discussed now is making them even more punitive, as proposed ina House-passed measure and another being proposed by Senate MajorityLeader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. Frist's bill doesn't address temporarywork permits, but it would tighten borders, punish employers who hireillegal immigrants and provide more visas.

One of the problems with making employers more liable forimmigration control is that they can only go so far under civilrights restraints in questioning someone and it's common knowledgethat false identification is a cottage industry. Just because theworker can flash documents doesn't mean they're valid.

And guest workers? Whether temporary work visas or the federalgovernment's controversial H-2A program, clearly a broader, moreworkable approach is necessary.

Bush has long promoted a guest worker program that essentiallyallows workers into this country for a specified time and then sendsthem home when their work here is done. That begs the larger issue ofgetting immigrants not only into the work force legally, but on atrack to legal residency, and perhaps citizenship.

We continue to support the concept of AgJobs, twin measuresstalled in Congress that would provide a stable, legal agriculturalwork force. (Use S.359 or H.R.884 if you want to track them on theInternet.) It is the product of negotiated agreement between theWashington Growers League and United Farmworkers Union, among others,and addresses both guest workers and legal residency.

AgJobs essentially has two parts:

An orderly process for legal residency status. This criticalcomponent provides temporary legal status for those working inagriculture and a procedure to gain permanent legal residency status.

The H-2A temporary visa program for agriculture, which would bereformed to make it easier, faster and less expensive foragricultural employers to use. It would still require protections insuch areas as housing, workers compensation insurance and wages forforeign workers recruited and employed under the program.

Elements of the AgJobs legislation could find their way into acompromise immigration reform measure sought by Senate JudiciaryCommittee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

The current H-2A program may get more attention this year asCentral Washington growers are nervous about an adequate laborsupply. That is one vehicle now available and certainly there must bea plan and accountability attached to any importing of workers.

We don't want a repeat of 1987, when agriculture workers werelured to the state by advertising campaigns that held out theprospect of plenty of jobs. As it turned out, warm weather, sunburnedapples and other factors made that an empty promise and many workerswere stranded here with no money to get back home, or even live onwhile they were here. Community and state resources were marshaled tomeet the need.

We don't expect a sweeping, all-in-one piece of legislation out ofthis Congress. What we would like to see is approval of somemeaningful steps that can be continued in the future towardcomprehensive reform.

Any time an "all or nothing" approach is tried in a legislativebody, the end result is usually nothing. We found that out in thisstate with farm worker housing. Competing factions finally agreed itwas better to have approved temporary shelter, with proper amenities,during cherry harvest than no shelter at all.

So, let the immigration reform debate begin once again Monday.It's OK to keep it civil, but we'll continue to hold out forproductive.