By
Katie Paff
April 7, 2009
Along with war and economics, illegal immigration has been a hot topic in politics for years. Though it has remained on the back burner recently in lieu of economic issues, it has come to the surface again in Washington state in the form of I-1043, an initiative that, if voted into law, would make it much harder for immigrants to come illegally to Washington — and for employers to hire them and get away with it.
Photo by Courtesy Photo / Craig Keller.
I-1043 sponsor Wendell Hannigan, far left, and I-409 sponsor Albert Pong, far right, are joined by other supporters on filing day Jan. 13 in Olympia.
Photo by Courtesy Photo / Craig Keller.
A group called Respect Washington poses during a rally in support of border patrol on March 7 in Sequim, Wash.
More coverage of...
Luis Ortega
Craig Keller
Wendell Hannigan
Essentially, the initiative would do three things: give employers the right to turn illegal immigrants in to federal immigration authorities despite “sanctuary city” policies in certain jurisdictions, require employers to instantly verify immigrants’ employment eligibility using the online service “E-Verify,” and require identity and residency verification before employees received taxpayer-funded benefits or were issued a driver’s license.
In order for the initiative to reach the ballot in November, supporters must gather 250,000 signatures by July 3, said the bill’s sponsor, Wendell Hannigan, a member of the Yakama Indian Nation and a strong advocate of stricter immigration laws. Hannigan said he feels illegal immigration is a huge problem, especially with the current economic downturn.
“With the way the economy is right now, there are a lot of desperate, legal people out there who need work,” Hannigan said. “They’d take that work in a heartbeat in order to feed their families and pay their bills.”
Hannigan also mentioned the budget shortfall, attributing part of the cause to illegal immigration.
“I’m not going to say that the budget crisis we’re experiencing in Washington — also in California — is entirely due to the illegal immigrants, but they have contributed to it,” Hannigan said. “They try to claim they’re not receiving benefits, but there are ways they can sneak around the system and get them. For example, when they hurt themselves on the job, many file for worker’s compensation for medical expenses but disappear back to Mexico and continue to receive payments down there.”
Also working on gathering signatures is Craig Keller, a leader of Respect Washington, an organization dedicated solely to passing I-1043. Keller echoed Hannigan’s opinion, citing statistics about illegal immigrants receiving federal benefits.
“Basically, our goal is to accomplish a restoration of hiring ethics and honesty in employment practices,” Keller said. “If illegal aliens aren’t here for work, they’re not going to be here to draw taxpayer-funded medical benefits and education money. That would solve the bulk of the problem. It’s not right ethically, and it’s certainly costing us a lot of money.”
Luis Ortega, a UW junior, Latino Student Union member and Mexico City native, takes issue with the argument that illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes.
“By far, that argument is a myth,” Ortega said. “They buy products and pay sales tax. A lot of them have tax ID numbers and get loans. They continually contribute to the economy and generate millions of dollars from the agricultural industry. If they were to suddenly all disappear, the U.S. economy would definitely feel the hit.”
Keller said an identical effort was made last year to bring an initiative to the ballot under I-409 — however, it failed to reach the ballot after garnering only 42,000 signatures. Now, he’s giving it another try.
“Right now we’re dependent on donations and the generosity of individual citizens to fund our work,” Keller said. “I can only hope we can have more people write us some checks to help us on our way.”
One thing Keller is hoping will help the initiative’s cause is the fact that so many Americans are out of work in this struggling economy.
“One of the main reasons that we have an international boundary is to protect the citizens we have and to help them earn a livelihood,” he said. “That’s not a xenophobic thing, it’s just why we have borders. I heard [about] a Bellingham factory where 20 illegals were detained. The very next day there were over 100 people lining up for those jobs. The bottom line is illegal immigration [is] disadvantaging our native population — there’s just no way you can compete with the low wages they take.”
On the other hand, Ortega said he thinks Keller’s argument is flawed. He said Keller is trying to find a simple solution to a very complex problem.
“The system provides incentives for illegal immigration,” he said. “And then the same system benefits from it, yet punishes them. It’s insane. If we had a better immigration system, this wouldn’t happen.”
Ultimately, what drives these immigrants to come to the United States — legally or not — is a quest for a better life for themselves and their families, Ortega said.
“They are people just trying to make a living,” he said. “If there was an easier way to do it, they would. These parents are just trying to give their kids a better life and save them from a life of poverty and crime. What parent wouldn’t do the same”
Reach reporter Katie Paff at features@dailyuw.com.
4 Comments
#1 Cassandra A.
on April 7, 2009 at 2:41 p.m.(Seattle, WA)
Jobs are out there for whoever want to take them..
"there’s just no way you can compete with the low wages they take.”, then you take them! why complain?
#2 cbowman
on April 7, 2009 at 7:33 p.m.(Olympia, WA)
There really should be no debate at all - illegal is illegal! There are many immigrants came in legally and had to pay the cost. Anyone breaking the law can come up with an excuse, but breaking the law is breaking the law. I for one hope this gets to the ballot and that it passes.
#3 Terry P.
on April 14, 2009 at 11:59 p.m.(Seattle, WA)
The late economist Milton Friedman once said, "You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state."
When you subsidize something, you get more of it. By offering free medical care and other services, as well as the prospect of amnesty, we simply get what we can expect: more illegal immigration.
In 2005, State Auditor Brian Sontag found that the State of Washington was compromising the economic viability of both Basic Health and Medicaid, by allowing people to access both, who were here illegally. The Federal government penalized the state for that and wanted some of its money back. That is still being fought by Washington State.
It also means that people and their families who are citizens, and are now experiencing layoffs and possibly the loss of their homes, have to fight to get on these programs. That is wrong.
Employers who use illegal immigrants are wrong, as are those who enable such people to remain in the United States - people in goverment.
True enough is the fact that they come here because there is work. But there is less to go around than there has been for decades.
A friend of mine from Mexico, who has lived in the States since early 2002 and remains a Mexican citizen, lives with a woman from Central America and now has a son; born here, the son is a U.S. citizen.
That friend told me that people keep coming here from Mexico, because they have given up on Mexico. Maybe if they stayed in Mexico and fought for the change their ancestors died for, way back in 1862, when they defeated the French, Mexico would be a better country, better economically.
Also true is that America's "War of drugs" has made Mexico into the "killing fields." Maybe if our government legalized marijuana and cocaine, and took the huge profits out of it, the drug cartels would whither away. But that's a debate for another time.
#4 mayra86
on April 18, 2009 at 7:56 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
I think we should need to be critical of the language used when referring to transnationals because language is powerful. The article is legitimizing the criminalization of immigrants, words like "illegal alien" are not apolitical.
Why can commodities migrate but not people? People have no problem wearing their cheaply make clothes, but their "nativist" fears marginalize the people who pick their food, watch their children, and make their clothes especially when their is resistance against assimilation.
To address the point that people have given up on Mexico I think this opinion is due to a lack of knowledge on the history of racism and classism that has affected Mexican society since colonization.
One final note, law is not unbiased, history can show us many examples when the "LAW" has been oppressive and wrong.
Post a comment