One Tough Border Collie
Sen. George Allen, a Virginia Republican and former maestro of his party's electoral strategy in the Senate, is ramping up his own 2006 campaign, though his eye might be on a bigger prize: the 2008 presidential race. As he navigates this election year, Allen sat down with U.S. News to discuss what may be the trickiest political battle of 2006: immigration reform. Excerpts follow:
What do you think of the Senate's compromise deal on immigration legislation last week--it's now stalled--that would have puts millions of illegal workers on the road to citizenship?
Throughout this debate I've consistently said the legislative priority should be to secure the borders and stop the flow of illegal entry. That fundamental responsibility must be addressed. Congress should move to forge both a stable and consistent legal immigration policy and a responsive legal-temporary-worker plan, but no plan should reward illegal behavior. That's why I just cannot support the convoluted three-tiered amnesty deal that was brokered last week because it rewards illegal behavior.
So where do you stand in the immigration reform debate?
The first responsibility is to secure our borders. The federal government, in my view, has been neglectful of doing this.... There are terrorists who would like to hit this country, and they're not necessarily going to come in on a flight from Paris or from London or from Frankfurt. They see that you can get into this country fairly easily by crossing the border.
So the question is, what should we do? My view is secure the borders. Everything from unmanned vehicles, to virtual fences, to actual fences, more personnel, detention centers. The places where you need an actual fence are where you have a big inflow. There are other places where you could use unmanned aerial vehicles and these unattended ground sensors. ... The point is to secure the border, and with more personnel, with more technology, and with more actual fences, we will stem the flow. Because unless we control our borders we will not be able to control our destiny as a nation.
What about creating a way for illegal immigrants to gain citizenship?
Just look back 20 years ago when Simpson-Mazzoli passed, giving amnesty to millions and millions of people and they said, all right that will be it. Here we are 20 years later, and some amount [of] over 10 million [people] are in here illegally. If this is rewarded and they're put on a track toward citizenship, that then will mean probably 20 years from now we'll be going through the same sort of exercise. To me it is very common-sense logic that if you reward illegal behavior you're going to get more of it.
Is a temporary-worker system possible?
I think we ought to come up with workable temporary-worker reforms in this country because the current [system] is inadequate in a variety of areas, from agriculture to seasonal workers and, to some extent, also in technology workers.
Can the borders be secured and temporary workers be permitted too?
Well, maybe both can be done, but in the event that a consensus is not reached about what you do with a temporary-worker system or those who are in here illegally, that should not preclude or prevent us from acting on what absolutely needs to be done, and that is to secure our borders--and it should have been done years ago. Clearly what the president is advocating [for guest workers] is not the same as what I am advocating for.
What in your mind is a good temporary-worker system?
I think there are structures such as the [visa] program for seasonal workers, and it is to me a template of how a legal temporary-worker system should operate. The employers, many of whom are small businesses ... in the seafood industries, the hotel, hospitality industry, maybe landscapers. They certify that they cannot find any Americans to fill the jobs that they've been advertising. And then they are matched up with someone who has checked out from another country. And they come in temporarily to work there.
If we construct an effective workable temporary-worker system in this country then employers are going to want to hire--all of this has to do with enforcing the law. Over a period of time employers are going to want to hire those who are legal. It'll get to a point for those who are here illegally [that] they are not going to be able to find work ... because [employers] are not going to want to get hit. There is pragmatism to having this kick in over a period of years. I'm not one who is advocating that we round up whatever number there is.
What do you think will happen with the legislation before Congress?
The House has already come up with a very, very strong--and maybe in some aspects stronger than necessary--securing-the-border approach. The Senate is going to come up with probably a strengthen-the-border approach but then also reward illegal behavior. That will go to [House-Senate] conference. The House isn't going to back down on it. ... I think there will be some amelioration of some of the positions they have taken. There is all this grousing about making it a felony versus a misdemeanor [for being in the country illegally].
Would President Bush veto what Congress passes?
If we had a secure-the-borders bill and he vetoes that ... I would advise that that would be a very unwise action.
This story appears in the April 17, 2006 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.