from the June 17, 2009 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0617/p09s03-coop.html
Solution to immigration reform is in the details
The US can stop 'making do' with the broken status quo by not letting interest groups direct policy with grand concepts.
By Philip Martin and Michael S. Teitelbaum
NEW YORK
Immigration reform is highly contentious, yet politicians agree on one thing: The current US immigration policy is broken and the status quo does not serve the interests of most workers and employers, nor the broader national interest.
You might then ask, "If most agree that the status quo is broken, why not fix it?" There is a simple answer to this: Since advocates for either side can't get what they want, the current broken model works well enough.
THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF NO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST HIRING ILLEGALS, BILLIONS IN WELFARE TO INDUCE EVEN MORE TO CLIMB OUR BORDERS, AND NO LEGAL NEED APPLY HERE POLICIES ARE WORKING JUST FINE! JUST VISIT MEXIFORNIA AND SEE!
Supporters of expanded immigration have tried but failed to increase legal immigration and to create paths to citizenship for most of the 11 to 12 million unauthorized. Since those options have not been attainable, the "broken" status quo is the next best option; it allows immigrant numbers to continue to grow, while giving millions of unauthorized migrants time to establish equities and roots in the US, including via US-born children.
Advocates for limits on immigration have also failed to achieve their goals. They want more effective enforcement in the workplace, but strongly oppose both increased legal immigration and another large-scale legalization. Hence for them, too, the broken status quo is the next best thing.
Meanwhile the two most interested groups – unauthorized migrants themselves and their employers – find the broken status quo satisfactory. It enables most unauthorized migrants to use false documents to circumvent the law and find US employment at higher wages than at home. It enables businesses to hire them at wage and benefit levels lower than the market would otherwise require. This minority of employers might prefer legal rather than falsely documented employees, but not if they cost more.
As President Obama prepares to initiate a national conversation on comprehensive immigration reform in the coming months, he should keep in mind that any hope for an effective solution lies in the details.
As with the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), the last "comprehensive" reform, current comprehensive proposals include three key components:
1. A plan to give legal status and a path to citizenship for most of the unauthorized;
2. A promise of more effective workplace enforcement via credible identification to limit employers' ability to hire unauthorized workers;
3. A way to deal with the future influx of migrant workers.
Each of the three elements is complex and contentious.
For legalization: How many of the estimated 11 to 12 million unauthorized should be legalized? How many should be granted US citizenship? Is the government able and willing to run such a program with both efficiency and credibility? What fees, proof of eligibility, and other requirements would be enforced?
For credible workplace identification: the tricky issues are cost, accuracy, penalties, liability, and privacy.
On the influx of migrant workers: the fracas centers on how much control employers get over temporary and permanent entries of low-wage workers.
The disputes over legalization and secure identification have not changed much since Congress stalemated on comprehensive immigration reform in 2006-07. On migrant workers, employer advocates know that the dismal job market makes it hard to pass the large temporary worker programs they want. Perhaps a commission – if employer advocates could shape its composition – could achieve the same thing administratively.
In the end what matters is not the concept, but the detail. One obvious example: What would prevent employer or other interest groups from finding ways to dominate a commission empowered to set numbers of migrant workers?
The United States immigration debate has been in a similar place before. It was the details that ensured that the comprehensive IRCA reforms of 1986 failed to reduce unauthorized migration.
In concept, IRCA prohibited the knowing employment of persons unlawfully in the US. But the perverse details imposed by some of the same interest groups active today invited the pervasive fraud that made this concept unenforceable. IRCA required employers to examine workers' documents but prohibited them from checking the documents' validity.
The key to successful comprehensive immigration reform is to ensure that the details support, rather than detract from, its goals.
Obama's administration can start by requiring that any legalization plan be evaluated by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) before it is implemented, to ensure that the government can legalize those eligible but prevent the widespread fraud that occurred under IRCA.
Washington also should require the GAO to certify that an effective workplace enforcement system has been implemented before legalization kicks in. And any truly independent commission would need safeguards against being dominated by the most interested interest groups.
Change is clearly needed, but as the president sets out to restart dialogue on immigration reform, he must not allow interest groups to push through another round of "comprehensive" reform that promises one result with grand concepts but whose details take us in another direction.
Not paying close attention to these critical details will only further exacerbate public cynicism and disenchantment. And that would leave us right where we started, with a still-broken policy.
Philip Martin, professor of agricultural economics at the University of California, Davis, was a member of the US Commission on Agricultural Workers. Michael S. Teitelbaum, a demographer, was a member and vice chair of the US Commission on Immigration Reform.
Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics
*
Foreclosures rising in Santa Clara County
By Sue McAllister
Mercury News
Posted: 06/16/2009 06:08:49 PM PDT
Updated: 06/17/2009 06:14:49 AM PDT
Click photo to enlarge
Foreclosures increased sharply in Silicon Valley last month,... (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)
• «1»
Real Estate
• Sign up for our real estate e-mail newsletter
• Search our databases of home prices, delinquencies, foreclosures and more.
Foreclosures increased sharply in Silicon Valley last month, according to a report released Tuesday, and some experts said they are likely to keep climbing despite widespread efforts to keep people from losing their homes.
There were 480 foreclosures in Santa Clara County in May, up 63 percent compared with April, according to ForeclosureRadar, a Discovery Bay company that tracks California foreclosure activity.
The increase in foreclosures in May and April followed a significant decline in March, which experts attributed to the moratoriums lenders imposed earlier in the year while they waited to find out how the Obama administration's Making Home Affordable refinance and loan modification plan would affect them and their customers.
The report's gauge of future foreclosure pain also worsened, at least by one measure: The pace at which Santa Clara County homeowners received "notices of default" — the first step in the foreclosure process — increased from 62 to 67 per day from April to May. The number of such notices actually declined slightly, to 1,339, because there were more business days in April than May.
ForeclosureRadar CEO Sean O'Toole said Tuesday he expects foreclosures and defaults to keep rising statewide — but slowly.
No 'flood' expected
Last summer, when foreclosures peaked in California, lenders were filing about 40,000 to 42,000 new default notices per
________________________________________
Advertisement
________________________________________
month, similar to the pace of the past two months. O'Toole said he thinks that rate may simply be the industry's capacity.
"I don't expect we're going to see this big wave or flood of foreclosures some people have been talking about," O'Toole said.
"There's a big backlog of homes scheduled for foreclosure, in default, not making payments, or with negative equity. All of those numbers are far higher than they should be in a healthy housing market. But I still think it's going to happen in an orderly fashion."
Despite the rising trend in default notices and foreclosures, there is clear evidence that lenders statewide are trying to avoid foreclosing.
Last month the number of homes in the county scheduled for foreclosure swelled to a record 3,115, from 2,501 in April. So only about 19 percent of homeowners who faced foreclosure during the month actually lost their homes.
Last August, when foreclosures peaked in the county at 853, there were only about 1,900 homes in that pipeline.
Statewide, nearly 112,000 properties were scheduled for foreclosure by the end of May, but only about 16 percent of them were foreclosed on, the ForeclosureRadar report said.
This week, a new state law went
(Source: ForeclosureRadar)
into effect that requires lenders without state-approved loan modification programs to help struggling borrowers delay foreclosure proceedings for 90 days. That may stall some foreclosures, but O'Toole and others have said the law will have little effect because so many lenders have modification plans in place.
Incentive to delay
Dustin Hobbs, a spokesman for the California Mortgage Bankers Association, said, "With all the new programs available at the federal level, voluntary efforts, and now a moratorium in place in California, lenders are more incentivized than ever to delay foreclosure whenever possible in an effort to reach borrowers whose home can be saved by modifying their loan."
Hobbs wouldn't speculate on how many foreclosures in California might be postponed in coming months. He said with so many "external factors," such as the federal Making Home Affordable program and the new California law, it's hard to forecast what the trend for next month will be.
No comments:
Post a Comment