This paper was commissioned by the North American Institute in support of its May 30, 2007, conference on “Energy Independence for North America: An Alternative Future” held in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

There is near universal agreement that the global climate is changing. Despite this consensus, a variety of myths about energy and society lead many to inaction. This conference and a book I recently co-edited (Sovacool and Brown, 2007) are about empowering alternative energy futures. The book does this by exposing some of the myths about energy and society and by showing how myths can become powerful tools for sustaining the status quo. 

Download the PDF.

In the opening decades of the 21st century, virtually all of America’s most critical problems - political, environmental and economic - will be wrapped up within the issue of energy. Energy fuels our deadliest enemies, threatens our environment, and poses a direct challenge to our long-term economic viability.

What is needed now is a coherent strategy that deals directly with our fundamental geopolitical dilemma: how to grow our economy while reducing our dependence on imported energy and, over time, carbon-emitting fuels.

We believe there is such a workable strategy. It centers on the creation of a powerful energy alliance among the three great nations of North America: the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Download the PDF.

INTRODUCTION

When Mexico, the United States and Canada debated NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the issue of migration was left off the negotiation table. Too difficult to include, some argued. Too many political and social passions, others claimed, could scuttle the entire trade and investment plan.

Today, over a decade later, we are ironically committing the same mistake. This time, however, we have inverted it. We are in the midst of a trilateral debate on migration and crossborder mobility, but seem unwilling or unable to connect the issues directly to the North American framework that provides an overarching rationale for increased trade, investment and exchange. So removed from the legislative arguments and policy debates on migration is the vision of a North American community that one needs not be too skeptical in asking: Is the concept of North America even relevant to debates about migration?

The purpose of this paper is to examine how a North American perspective may be relevant to current issues involving migration and crossborder mobility. This is not a paper that reviews the by now all-too-familiar proposals on current migration. Rather, the goal is broader and more comprehensive. Regardless of which side of the policy and legislative issues one supports, and even despite which side “wins,” from a North American perspective the challenge of migration and crossborder mobility will persist. People build small fences to address particular problems; they build large, 700-mile fences when they believe they have no choice. The relevance of a North American perspective to current and continuing debates must be, first and foremost, to search for a range of choices and alternatives to fences, temporary worker programs, and divisive, socially-wrenching proposals designed as much to polarize as to gain broad support.

The paper, therefore, will not dissect the competing views on migration and attempt to reconcile them in a new synthesis to support yet another policy proposal. Too much hype and spin already passes as policy advocacy. Rather, the paper is organized as a set of challenges and questions, raised here to generate debate about new ideas and approaches specifically among the Symposium participants who have gathered to examine the migration issue.

For that reason, following the Symposium, the author will host a 30-day online discussion of the points raised in the paper and during the conference. Participants are invited to send their comments, new ideas, evidence, etc., to the author who will distribute them to Symposium participants for discussion and subsequent inclusion in a report on the Symposium.1 Your participation in the discussion will not involve arguing with the author – that’s not the goal. Rather, the North American Institute’s (NAMI) intent is to revive a relatively dormant discussion of the viability and value of a North American regional framework.

[Download the PDF.]

We may be alone in the universe, or maybe we’re not. We still do not know. We are certain, however, that no other place in the solar system is likely to add to the reserves of oil, natural gas, coal, or uranium that are already here.  We also expect population to rise, especially in the developing countries, as will the demand for energy.  Another certainty is that the environmental impacts from our thirst for energy are moving beyond the capacity of natural systems to buffer us from their ill effects.

Many people around the world are working hard to solve the linked problems of energy demand and environmental degradation.  While some are looking for technological innovations to expand the contribution of existing resources, others are looking for environmentally sustainable alternative energy solutions.  One option is to develop wind power to generate electricity, both because it has become cost competitive with other resources and because it lacks many of their troublesome side effects.

Wind power will not be a panacea, but it can contribute strongly in many places, if we choose those places with care.  In many locations there are technical difficulties, transmission bottlenecks, and public resistance.  Nonetheless, developing wind power in North America makes a lot of sense.  This paper summarizes the present status of North American wind power, identifies its most persistent problems, and suggests some policy-based adjustments.

[Download this paper, with illustrations, as an Acrobat PDF.]

ABSTRACT

The current situation of renewable energy policy, technology, and applications in Mexico is reviewed in this paper. It is shown that, in spite of the abundance of renewable energy resources, the generation of electricity and other non-electric applications are in the early stages of development. Opportunities to use renewables as part of the Mexican energy mix are many, and could bring a number of benefits, social, economic, political, environmental and otherwise. Barriers are also many, and they are outlined here as well. It is concluded that Mexico is lagging behind other countries of similar economic capacity with respect to the development of its renewable energy resources, and that concerted action among different sectors of the economy is necessary to alter the present situation. Otherwise, the opportunity will be lost and Mexico will remain a net importer of new energy technologies.

[Download the PDF of the entire paper.]

Thank you, Ted, for that introduction.  I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today at the New America Foundation.  I appreciate your sensible policy influence in many areas.

Thanks to my friend Terry Tamminen, head chef in my friend Arnold Schwarzenegger’s kitchen cabinet.

Thanks also to Diana Farrell and the McKinsey Global Institute for their excellent report on energy productivity, to be released today.  It confirms what we have been doing in New Mexico and the West, and it supports what I will discuss today.

Energy productivity is critical to meeting energy demand.  It creates a more resilient, more prosperous economy.  And for consumers, it saves money, saves energy, and protects the climate.  The McKinsey report is a huge step forward in understanding energy.

I want to recognize some of the other folks here as well.  Steve Howard, from the Climate Group, bringing the private sector together to face some of the world’s biggest challenges.  Bill Prindle from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, who’s a great resource on energy efficiency.  Linda Fisher, from DuPont, a company that is leading the corporate sector on sustainability.  John Stowell, from Duke Energy, among the nation’s leaders in seeking clean energy solutions.  I am sure I missed people I should acknowledge, but I don’t have a lot of time.  So let me get started.

Jefferson said something like “a little revolution every twenty years isn’t a bad thing.”

We have known about this country’s energy problems for 35 years, yet our energy revolution stopped in about 1985, when we rolled back fuel economy standards.  Since then our consumption has climbed, fuel efficiency has stagnated, and our crippling dependence on foreign oil has about doubled.

Today, I am going to stake my claim to being the next president, the Energy President, on the concept of a fast, comprehensive energy revolution in the United States.

Gasoline is back up over $3 a gallon.  People are hurting.  The decline in retail sales reported for April was among the worst ever, partly because most American households do not have income to spread across high gasoline costs and all the other expenses of life.

These gasoline price increases have virtually nothing to do with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the Outer Continental Shelf.  They are not because oil is running out, or because of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.

I am here to tell you consumers are hurting because U.S.  energy markets are not diverse and competitive, and because we have fed our addiction to oil instead of ending it.

We are bleeding ourselves to death, buying up to 300 billion dollars worth of foreign oil every year, and spending another 100 or 150 billion dollars transporting and defending oil around the world.

The potential for larger price spikes and pain is even scarier.  A successful terrorist attack on critical oil infrastructure, for instance, could drive prices up to $100 or $120 or even $150 a barrel.

We need a bold, aggressive national energy and climate policy that helps Americans who are struggling to heat their homes and fill their gas tanks, and that moves us to safe, available alternatives as quickly as possible.

That policy will recognize and benefit from the regional differences that give the United States its strength and diversity.

These regional strengths – from the wind and solar of my own Mountain region, to the biomass and coal of the Midwest, to the tidal forces on the coasts – will help the United States meet the two great challenges of our era: energy security and global warming.

Here are the principles that guide my thinking.

Our energy policy solutions must fight global warming, which threatens human, ecological, and economic catastrophe literally everywhere on earth.

Our energy policy solutions must wean us from oil, because any oil addiction perverts our nation’s strategic objectives, limits our options, and costs us both blood and treasure.

Next, in meeting this challenge, we must support and help people, communities, industries, and small businesses who could be hurt by a careless transition – but are being terribly hurt by soaring prices today. 

Further, I am a market-oriented Democrat.  I want to set clear regulatory standards and systems and incentives, and allow the markets to respond.

Finally, we must keep the U.S. at the forefront of science and technology development – exploring frontiers, finding solutions to our energy and climate challenges.

These are my bedrock principles— they are not subject to negotiation.

We need a man-on-the-moon program to end this addiction, this hemorrhage.  But we need it much faster and much more boldly than people are suggesting.

When John F. Kennedy challenged this country to reach the moon, he challenged us to get there in TEN years, not twenty, or thirty, or forty.

On energy policy, we need to change fast, or sink slowly.

I am issuing a call to action, for Congress, the energy industry, and the public.  I am calling for a new American revolution – an energy and climate revolution.

People in politics and industry might say it can’t be done.  My goals are too lofty.

I am not comparing myself to JFK, but I know that when he challenged Americans to reach the moon in 10 years, America responded by saying, “How can we help?” We didn’t say, “It can’t be done.”

I bring experience and a record of accomplishment to this challenge.  As Governor of New Mexico, I have put renewable energy requirements in place, supported generous solar tax incentives, eliminated sales taxes on hybrid vehicles, set aggressive targets to reduce global warming pollution – a list of about 40 important initiatives.  New Mexico is now the Clean Energy State.

As Energy Secretary, even with very low oil prices, I pushed for aggressive energy efficiency standards, conservation in the midst of the California electricity crisis, a national renewable portfolio standard, and development of new vehicle technology.

As a diplomat and negotiator, I have a record of dealing successfully with hostage-takers and tyrants.  Now I want to bring that experience to the task of freeing the United States from its status as international hostage to costly energy, and from the tyranny of oil dependence.

I have a record, I have the will, and I am making this the central priority for new national policy in my campaign for president.  When I take office, the Congress and I will have a second “First 100 Days,” like FDR’s, to focus on changing energy and climate policy right away.

Here is my five-goal policy framework to break our oil addiction, create competition and value for consumers, strengthen our national security, create American jobs, and lead the world to effective climate protection.

It starts with goal 1, a dramatic reduction in oil consumption by 2020.

The United States consumes about 21 million barrels of oil per day.  After Katrina, about 65% of this was imported.

By 2020, with hard work and the cooperation of Congress and the American people, we will reduce our oil dependence by at least 6 million barrels a day, probably 8 million, and possibly as much as 10 million.

First, we need to get low- and zero-petroleum plug-in cars into the marketplace, while sharply reducing the carbon emissions from our electric sector.  This is the most important single step we can take in changing our oil consumption patterns for the future.

By 2020, this change will reduce consumption by around 2 million barrels a day, with far larger reductions in the years after that.

As Energy Secretary, I supported the electric and plug-in hybrid vehicle concepts.  They work.  The battery technologies have come a long way.

I am talking about two types of vehicles.

The pure-electric vehicle offers simplicity and performance for an average daily commute in our larger metro areas, like the big cities on the coasts and in the midwest.

The plug-in electric car or truck provides more range and flexibility for people who might drive longer distances, and it can extend gas mileage above 100 miles per gallon.

Plug-in cars don’t need a whole new refining and retailing infrastructure, like hydrogen, which has potential for the more distant future.  The infrastructure is there, in your wall sockets.

Most consumers will love the plug-in car.  As a consumer, you choose your fuel.  Gasoline at 3, maybe 4 dollars a gallon?  Or electricity, costing a dollar or two for a 100-mile charge?

In February of 2009, within 30 days of taking office, I will hold a two-day White House plug-in summit with automakers, utilities, and labor.  We will lock in the program to get the 100 mile per gallon car on the market across the board, and to make sure we are building clean electricity to fuel it.

I will push this plug-in car concept with significant rebates to consumers who buy them, and by supporting automakers who want to build them.  I expect the Big Three automakers to lead the world in this technology.  There are other manufacturers – including an electric car manufacturing company in my own state – who are fast getting into the market, at Detroit’s peril.

Here’s my second oil-saving initiative.

I will push fuel economy standards to 50 miles per gallon by 2020.  As a result, our conventionally powered automotive fleet will reduce its demand by as much 3 million barrels a day.

What the Congress is considering right now, at thirty-five miles per gallon, marks progress after years of inaction – but we made better progress 30 years ago.

In fact, between 1977 and 1985, the U.S.  reduced oil demand by 17% without any of the great new technologies and alternatives we have available now.

As the McKinsey report says, aligning U.S.  fuel economy standards to international levels could save millions of barrels of oil every day.  And it will save money for people who use conventionally fueled vehicles – perhaps as much as $1,000 or $2,000 a year for people who drive long distances, as we do out West.

Automakers, including Detroit, can meet these standards by using lighter but safer materials and new engine efficiencies such as ultra-clean diesels.

Here’s my third oil-saving initiative.  We will create a well-to-wheels low-carbon fuel requirement that reduces the carbon impact of our liquid fuels by 30% by 2020, including alternative fuels that will substitute for about 10% of our gasoline demand.

This standard will bring our oil consumption down by another 2 million barrels a day.

These fuels can be produced all over the country, creating jobs in rural areas, and preventing the export of petrodollars to other nations.

Fourth, we will reduce oil consumption by non-auto transportation – ships, trains, trucks, and planes.  This will include new technologies, including some fuel-switching to electricity and renewable fuels – and save another 500,000 barrels a day.  We will work to increase the efficiency in non-transportation sectors as well, potentially saving another 500,000 barrels per day.  And I will support smart growth and public transportation policies that will reduce driving and save oil.

This is an integrated, comprehensive approach to a tremendous national challenge.  It relies on American technology, patriotism, and cooperation.

In all, by 2020, with real presidential leadership and the support of Congress and the American people, we will sharply reduce oil demand by six, eight or even 10 million barrels a day.

Goal number two is new efficiencies and energy sources in the electrical sector.

I will call for a national renewable portfolio standard of 30% by 2020, rising to 50% by 2040.  As you know, a renewable portfolio standard, or RPS, requires a certain amount of renewable energy to be represented in the electricity sold to every consumer.

I know this is extremely aggressive.  But with retirements of older, inefficient power plants, a new carbon cap and trade system, and growing demand for electricity from plug-in cars, we must capitalize on the low-carbon energy sources nature provides for us – wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass.

When I was chair of the Western Governors’ Association, I worked closely with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to build bipartisan support for 30,000 megawatts of new renewables in the West by 2015.  We found that this amount – and even more – would be cost-effective and achievable.

Further, based on research like the McKinsey report today, I will push for a law requiring a 20% improvement in energy productivity by 2020.

When the Western Governors’ Association studied my proposal to achieve this 20 by 20 goal, it found that we could easily achieve those savings – at a 2.5 to 1 cost-benefit ratio, saving western customers $21 billion a year by 2020.

Goal three is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least 20% by 2020, and 80% by 2040.

New scientific evidence shows that we must move faster than we thought to address climate change and global warming.

We must show other nations that we will cooperate with them to hold atmospheric carbon dioxide levels under a safe, acceptable level.

We will start with a market-based cap and trade system.  By 2020, utilities and industry will be allowed to emit 80% as much global warming pollution as they do today, and they will have to buy rights to do so, creating a real market for pollution reduction.

It’s like musical chairs for carbon.  By 2050 there will be 90% fewer chairs.

When these savings are combined with savings in the transportation sector, I believe we will reduce greenhouse gas emissions overall by 30% or more by 2020.

My program allows time for businesses and utilities to prepare and adjust, and provides time for the federal government to develop a regime for safe, long-term carbon disposal, or sequestration.  I believe that coal – carbon-clean coal – will play a role in our energy future, and that we must support the deployment of carbon-clean coal technologies here and around the world.

We can afford to protect the climate.  Given the risks of catastrophic climate change, we must afford it.  A small commitment could save incalculable amounts in preventing drought and natural disasters, famine and disease, and destruction of coastal areas and oceans.

My fourth goal is to capitalize on our strengths in science and technology.

America is the engine room of global innovation and ingenuity.  Whenever I meet our college and university students and faculty, I see vital new enthusiasm and commitment to meeting these energy and climate challenges.  It’s inspiring – but it is also a valuable resource.

We have strong educational and research institutions.  We have the world’s best-trained intellectual and academic base.  Scientists and technologists from around the world want to study and work here.

That is a huge strength, one that we must not waste, and one that can nourish our growth and leadership in meeting the energy and climate challenge.

I don’t generally agree with the concept of collecting large sums of federal revenue and putting them into vast funds, holding ten or fifty billion dollars a year, that the government would use to pick winners and losers in energy technology.

But I do think the federal government must play a critical role in supporting and pushing new technologies, in collaboration with scientists and investors and companies.

I believe we can create a national energy innovation trust fund with a one-time funding commitment, a fund that should provide needed research and technology support and that will sustain itself over time by helping the private sector deploy the best energy technologies.

It is here, in science and technology, that we have the most potential to surprise ourselves with large gains reducing oil consumption and global warming emissions.  We must invest in our world-leading institutions and programs in science and technology.

My fifth goal is to lead by example, making the United States a beacon of the new energy future.

We have become a lone wolf instead of the brave eagle, at least in the eyes of the world.  It is time for us to fly high again, to see the whole landscape, to be seen by the world, to represent freedom, and human rights.

As we implement these far-reaching policy changes at home, we must immediately return to the international negotiating table and support mandatory limits on global warming pollution, keeping atmospheric carbon below 450 parts per million.

Nations such as India and China are waiting to implement big changes in their energy policies because the United States hasn’t committed yet.  Yet they know climate protection is in everyone’s interest, including their own.

My international program will include working closely and bilaterally with fast-growing nations like China, Brazil, South Africa, and India so that they use new, low-carbon technologies to meet their fast-growing demand.

To achieve this, I will cooperate with the European Union, the World Bank, the Asian partnership, agencies of the United Nations, and our allies around the world to help finance the small incremental cost of “doing it right.”

Internationally speaking, we must also groom relations with our largest oil suppliers, Mexico and Canada, which supply about 20% of our oil.

My North American Energy Council will stabilize the oil and gas trade, work on a continental electrical grid, help bring energy resources and productivity to market throughout the continent, and develop a regional system for carbon trading.

I know the importance of Arctic natural gas – from Canada and Alaska – and want to help bring that relatively non-polluting, plentiful, reliable resource to market.

I also know Mexico, and believe that we can have a strong, constructive, historic relationship with that country that strengthens its economy and reduces immigration tensions.

Lastly, we should work with the Gulf nations, and our partners in consuming nations and the United Nations Security Council, to try to create a multilateral system for protecting the Gulf.

Securing the Gulf and other oil transportation routes, multilaterally, could help stabilize oil prices and international peace.

About the oil companies…

I know people love to hate the oil companies.  They have been raking in huge profits.

But I want to invite them to become energy companies, and invest in our thriving new energy future.

The energy industry is invited to the table, but it isn’t going to run the table the way it has in the last five years.

In closing…

Americans need heat and electricity in our homes, schools and workplaces.  We need to get places.  Americans are hurt by unpredictable and soaring energy prices.

The way out is to get off oil, to create competition, to support energy productivity, to maximize our strengths in science and research, and invest in new technologies and energy sources.

We can create a new energy future, with broad, bold strokes.  And we must sharply reduce our global warming pollution in the process.

A brief, conceptual speech doesn’t provide all the details.  I know.  So I hope you will go to my website and look at my new white paper on energy, security and climate.

This is the way to a bright, strong, prosperous future for the United States – and for the world.

I called for an energy revolution – and now, today, I call on you to join it.

Thanks for your time.

I come here today as a border state Governor, and a Hispanic-American who knows that our nation can no longer afford to ignore the issue of illegal immigration. I come here as a Democrat who believes my party has an obligation as the new majority party to pass comprehensive legislation to reform our immigration laws. And I come here as someone who believes it’s time for our leaders to tell the simple truth about this—and every other—issue.

Today, there are over 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Most are law abiding, except for the fact that they have entered this country illegally. And almost all have come here to work—to build a better life for themselves and their families, just as previous generations of immigrants have done.

Eleven million people living in the shadows is a huge problem, and we need to address it intelligently and thoughtfully—and urgently. If Congress fails to do so, it will only get worse, and the demagoguery about it which we have heard so much of recently will only get louder.

As the California-born son of an American father and a Mexican mother, I have known immigrants all my life and I know why they come to America. And as Governor of New Mexico I have known the problem of illegal immigration all too well—we live with this issue every day in my state.

Like it or not, these people have become part of the fabric of our economy and our culture. They have broken the law to enter our country, but they are here—there are millions of them building and cleaning our homes and offices, picking and cooking our food, caring for our children. These men and women are here illegally, but they work hard, pay taxes, and contribute to the communities they live in.

America needs to SOLVE this problem, not tear itself apart over it.

I believe the American people are better than the demagogues think we are, and that the voters proved it on November 7th. The most extreme candidates lost across the country. Seventy percent of Hispanic citizens voted Democratic, and most non-Hispanics also rejected the divisive politics of the anti-immigrant extremists.

I hope that the Republican right-wing learned its lesson and that sensible Senators and Congressmen from both parties can now come together and address this real problem with real solutions. I also hope that President Bush, whose rhetoric has been moderate on this issue, will now step up and lead a bipartisan comprehensive reform effort.

Think for a moment about the quality of life for an undocumented worker. No protection from unscrupulous employers. No job benefits. No health care, no pension, no Social Security, no workers compensation, no Medicare or disability insurance.

Yet—despite what some people would have you think—almost all of these workers pay taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes. Because in order to find work they must either use someone else’s Social Security number or make one up. Since they will never collect benefits, these illegal workers are subsidizing our Social Security and Medicare trust funds with their payroll taxes.

And those who are not paying into Social Security and Medicare are working under the table, and are at even greater risk of being exploited. No minimum wage, no safety standards, no over-time, no protection against sexual harassment or even sexual abuse. Many workers change jobs every few months because their employer finds out that their Social Security number is invalid or belongs to someone else.

Most undocumented immigrants come to the United States to work low-wage jobs which few Americans want, such as picking crops or cleaning toilets. Our economy creates demand for at least 400,000 new low-skill illegal immigrants per year, but only about 140,000 are allowed to enter legally. When demand and legal supply are so out of line, the pressures for illegal immigration are enormous.

And let’s not forget what kind of lives the vast majority of illegal immigrants were living in their home countries—what propels them to come here in the first place. Economic opportunity and upward mobility in Mexico and Central American countries are limited, and half of all Mexicans live in poverty and a fifth live in extreme poverty.

When there are hundreds of thousands of relatively good paying new jobs available every year a few hundred miles to the north the result is completely predictable.

Yes, we are talking about people who knowingly have broken the law. And they should be held accountable, like all lawbreakers. But we also are talking about people who are economic refugees, and who contribute significantly to America’s economic success and to the economic and political stability of their home countries—with the billions in remittances they send home to their families every year.

If we’re going to tell the truth we’ll admit that entire sectors of our economy rely on these laborers —construction, restaurants, and agriculture, for example. Without them, many American businesses simply could not continue to function.

By some estimates, undocumented workers account for fully 2% of our national economy. 11 million lawbreakers is a daunting number - and more arrive every day. Such widespread disregard for the law is corrosive of our civic culture, and must not be allowed to continue.

A nation of laws cannot allow millions of undocumented immigrants to live in the shadows and hundreds of thousands more to enter the country illegally every year. For decades politicians have passed laws on immigration with a wink and a nudge, with no intent of following through and making sure those laws were enforced.

For far too long, the immigration debate has been about electoral politics, not about policy. We need more honest leadership than that. We need to stop exploiting the immigration problem, and start solving it. We need to pass realistic laws and then enforce them rigorously.

Despite the campaign rhetoric, I refuse to believe that most House Republicans really favor trying to round up 11 million people, separating them from their children who are citizens, and deporting them en masse. But that’s what the bill they passed in the House of Representatives on December 16, 2005 would require. Americans don’t want that and I believe the results of the 2006 elections prove it.

Only in a few races for local office in communities that have been dramatically transformed in recent years by illegal immigration was anybody defeated for public office because they supported a moderate approach to the problem. Certainly no congressional or gubernatorial candidate was defeated for that reason.

I got almost 70 percent of the vote for Governor this year in New Mexico—15 percent more than in 2002 when I was first elected, and New Mexico is a swing state. This is after I implemented a policy to grant drivers licenses without regard to legal residency. As a result of this policy we got the percentage of uninsured drivers down from 31 percent to 12 percent.

New Mexicans want our roads to be safe and the driver who rear-ends them to be insured. We want our highway cops to focus on catching drunk drivers, not illegal immigrants. The Federal government has failed to deal with illegal immigration, forcing state governors to deal with the consequences of this failure.

Governors must promote public safety and ensure that all residents of the state--welcome or unwelcome, legally here or not--are productive, self-supporting, and law abiding contributors to our community. But treating illegal immigrants like human beings won’t make the problem go away. We also need to face up to the problem, and that begins with better border security. Last year I declared a State of Emergency along our border with Mexico because the situation there had gotten out of hand. Nobody was addressing the issue in Washington, D.C., and crime, drugs and lawlessness were out of control. I also was the first Governor to meet President Bush’s request to send National Guard troops to the border, because the situation is a national security concern as well.

Al Qaeda took decades to find a way to hit America hard and terrorists are still out there, probing, plotting, and preparing for their next attack. I know that full well from my diplomatic experience. If there’s a way for them to get into this country and attack us again they will find it. We need to stop them, and border security is essential to doing so.

I believe in recognizing the reality of the immigration problem and addressing it head-on. I reject both the cheap rhetoric we heard in this year’s campaign, AND I reject the fears of some Democrats that taking action will cause our party political harm.  We should seek a bipartisan solution to the problem of illegal immigration, and I believe such a solution is at hand.

We have a unique opportunity to deal with this issue in 2007 and if we let it pass we might not get another opportunity for years to come. Illegal immigration has doubled in the past ten years and if it is not addressed it could double again in the next ten years. Think of the demagoguery we will hear then!

So I am calling on the Democratic Congress to act swiftly to work with the President and solve this problem. And it can be solved by taking four realistic steps— securing the border, increasing legal immigration, preventing employers from hiring illegal workers, and providing a path to legalization for most of the 11 million illegal immigrants already here.

Securing the border must come first—but we must understand that building a fence will not in any way accomplish that objective. No fence ever built has stopped history and this one wouldn’t either. The Congress should abandon the fence, lock, stock, and barrel. It flies in the face of America as a symbol of freedom.

This is what we should do:  immediately put enough National Guard troops at the border to keep it covered until we can secure it with Border Patrol officers. That should take no longer than three years. If it takes another year, let’s do it.

Second, we must hire and train enough Border Guards to actually cover the entire border. I have spent a lot of time at the border and I know we cannot secure it with a fence, but we can secure it with enough trained Border Patrol officers. I propose doubling the number of Border Patrol agents from approximately 12-thousand to 24-thousand. That would secure the border. And you could more than pay for it with the funding for the first segment of that ill-advised fence between, Mexico and the United States. Real security, real results, at a fraction of the financial or political cost.

Third, we should give the Border Patrol the benefit of the best surveillance equipment available to our military. And, as suggested by Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, a leader on immigration issues, we should implement a system of “informant visas” and cash rewards for aliens who provide law enforcement with information on human traffickers and document forgers.

We should establish a “fraudulent documents task force” to constantly update law enforcement and border officials on the latest fraudulent documents being marketed for entry into the United States.

Finally, we have to work closely with the Mexican government. Illegal immigration is, at its root, primarily an economic problem: Mexicans need jobs and incomes, and Mexico benefits greatly from illegal immigration to the United States. It is a safety valve for their unemployed, and a major source of revenue in their economy, from the money illegal workers here send home.

Under present conditions, the Mexicans just don’t have enough incentive to give us the help we need at the border. Mexico needs to do more to stem the flow. But if we create a reasonable guest worker program and provide a path to legalization for illegal immigrants already here—as I will discuss in a moment—there is every reason to expect Mexico to do its part to create more jobs in Mexico and to help us with border security.

The Mexicans, after all, also suffer great harm from the lawlessness at the border, from drug smuggling and the simple misery of people trying again and again to get into the United States illegally.  But don’t expect the Mexican government to do anything if we’re going to talk about building a Berlin-style wall and deporting millions of Latinos.

Two weeks ago I met with Mexican President Calderon and he told me he is willing to do work with us to stop illegal immigration—if the United States is willing to address the crisis honestly and realistically along with him. If we refrain from building the fence (which, as I have said, is a waste of money anyway), I believe that the Mexicans would to step in with real efforts to help us patrol the border more effectively.

We need to build a special relationship with our neighbor to the south, so that we can jointly patrol the border, and work together on creating more jobs for Mexicans at home in Mexico. President Bush needs to address this issue with Mexico aggressively and realistically. He needs to use his last two years to turn President Calderon’s good intentions into good efforts.

One of the reasons for my meeting with President Calderon was to pitch a plan to develop border infrastructure to move goods through the free-trade zones along the border, revitalizing communities on both sides of the border and creating much-needed jobs. This kind of action takes face-to-face diplomacy- something this country has been far too reluctant to engage in lately. I believe many problems can be solved by facing them head-on, face-to-face. My entire career has been based largely on that principle.

Earlier today, I was very proud to stand with Secretary General Insulza of the organization of American States, who has appointed me as a Special Envoy to the OAS for Hemispheric Relations. I will work on special assignments in Latin America at the request of the Secretary, with a special focus on economic development and immigration. It would be my goal to demonstrate to OAS member states that they have an equal responsibility to solve the immigration problem, and work together on many important issues.

Once the border is secure we must make it possible for employers to meet legally their unskilled labor needs. Raising the minimum wage to $7.50 dollars an hour will motivate more Americans to fill some of these jobs, but most low-wage jobs will still need to be filled by immigrants—because there simply are not enough Americans who want them.

If the US economy needs these workers, it is in our national interest to let more of them come legally, by increasing combined legal quotas for temporary and permanent taxpaying immigrants to 400,000 workers per year. To keep families together, we also should double the number of family member visas, from 480,000 to 960,000.

We also need to improve the efficiency and transparency of our legal immigration machinery, which is plagued by long delays and huge backlogs. We need clearer procedures and more rapid and efficient processing of immigration petitions, so that fewer people will seek to evade the legal process, and more can be admitted legally.

The McCain-Kennedy legislation passed by the Senate this year provided an excellent framework for a guest worker program: pay an application fee, undergo a medical examination and a background check, the initial work period would be three years and it could be extended for up to three more years, if you’re out of work for more than 45 days you must return to your home country or last country of residence, you can change employers, but if you break the law you must leave. Those are realistic and sustainable requirements.

The number of guest workers allowed at any one time must be based upon the needs of the US economy.  The goal must be to meet demand for jobs that go unfilled by American citizens, and no more.

Increasing the minimum wage will help, but we must make certain that no American loses a job because of a guest worker program. Enforcement of our minimum wage laws also must improve: any employer who pays less than the minimum wage to any worker must face both high fines and a high probability of getting caught. We also must expand employment-training for low-wage American workers.

We also need a national system to reliably and instantaneously verify the legal status of every job applicant and worker. We cannot stop illegal immigration if we continue to look the other way on illegal employment.

We need a national, non-duplicable electronic worker identification document to be used exclusively for employment purposes.  Such a system must come with legal protections against it being used to discriminate in hiring practices, as well as privacy safeguards.

After the institution of such an ID system, employers will have no excuses:  those who knowingly hire undocumented workers must face serious and certain penalties. Those who hire illegal immigrants are law-breakers too, and like illegal immigrants themselves, they must be held to account for breaking the law.

Finally, there is the question of the status of the 11 million illegal immigrants who are here today.  The legislation passed last December by the Republican House of Representatives was a monument to demagoguery. It actually proposed making felons of 11 million people and rounding them up for deportation.

Clearly, this would be impossible to do. The number of illegal immigrants is five times the number of inmates in all American prisons combined. Our economy could not stand the shock of losing all these workers, and our national conscience would not countenance arresting millions of men, women and children. We did this to Japanese Americans in 1942, and we rightfully regret that abandonment of basic American decency.

So the choice is clear:  either we leave 11 million people in limbo and let them be joined by millions more, or we devise a path to earned legalization. You certainly can’t enact a guest worker program without dealing with the millions already here, and the economic reality is that the demand for workers will be met with immigrants one way or another.

Providing a path to earned legalization is not amnesty, albeit some will call it that. Let them: Fear mongers spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to call it amnesty—and the American people saw through it.  Polls show that large majorities of Americans favor providing illegal immigrants a path to legalization.

Still, the path to legalization should recognize that laws have been broken. The presence of most of them benefits this country, but there must be accountability. Almost all illegal workers pay into the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. By legalizing them, they all will. And to be legalized, they should be required to pay any other back taxes they owe.

They also should pay a fine for breaking the law. And they must learn English and have a clean record. If they meet all of these requirements, we should say, “Welcome to America. You’re now a legal worker. Just remember, you’re our guests and you must continue to follow these rules, and those that don’t will face the consequences.” And with instantaneous worker verification in place, we’ll be able to do it.

Finally, let me return to the subject of family. Our Constitution states unambiguously that if you are born in the United States you are a citizen of this country and you are guaranteed equal protection under all of our laws.

It’s estimated that more than 50% of all illegal immigrants have children who thus are citizens of the United States. If we required their parents to leave what would become of the minor children? Would they be made wards of the state somehow? They cannot be required to leave along with their parents.

This is one of the reasons why I believe the legislation was passed in the House without any intent of it ever becoming law—which is transparently dishonest leadership. And I believe the proponents of immigration reform have nothing to fear from those who have resorted to such tactics. The voters are fed up with that kind of politics and they are fed up with the failure to address pressing problems like illegal immigration.

Most Democrats in the House of Representatives voted against the Republican bill to criminalize illegal immigration and Democrats are now in charge of the House. A bipartisan majority in the Senate passed the McCain-Kennedy bill. That majority grew larger on Election Day. And President Bush supports a guest worker program and a path to legalization.

The new political lineup in Washington means that Congress has the numbers to pass a comprehensive immigration reform law next year which the President will sign.

We have a historic opportunity to solve a problem that is tearing our country apart. We must not miss this chance. The Democratic Agenda for the next Congress is an excellent one—raise the minimum wage, get lobbyists out of the business of writing legislation, allow Medicare to negotiate for the lowest possible prescription drug legislation, enact all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and change the course of our Iraq policy.

Immigration reform must be added to the top of that list. The Democrats won the election and the price of leadership is doing what’s right for America. Thank you very much.

Rapid increases in the foreign-born population at the state level are not associated with negative effects on the employment of native-born workers. An analysis of the relationship between growth in the foreign-born population and the employment outcomes of native-born workers revealed wide variations but no consistent pattern across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The size of the foreign-born workforce, its relative youth and low education level are also unrelated to the employment prospects for native workers. These findings emerge from the analysis of Census Bureau data for the boom years of the 1990s and the subsequent recession and slowdown.

http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=69

“The complaint frequently heard by Canadians that the American process to re-open the border amounted to a stealth form of protectionism is not borne out by the record,” said author Alexander Moens, senior fellow at The Fraser Institute and professor of political science at Simon Fraser University.

This new paper examines the trade, regulatory, and political relationship between Canada and the United States through the lens of a single case study.

The Canadian export market in cattle and beef products was built on the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement and the subsequent North American Free Trade Agreement. These accords removed quotas and tariffs from trade in cattle and beef products. As a result, Canadian exports of cattle to the US grew from .5 million head in 1988 to over 1.5 million in 2002 and beef exports grew from 200,000 metric tons to over 1 million.

“Free trade has been very good for the Canadian industry. Canada and the United States had established a free, transparent, and competitive market in beef and live cattle, said Moens.

In May 2003, the discovery of the first indigenous Canadian case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), commonly called mad cow disease caused a major disruption in a multi-billion dollar industry and threatened to unravel this successful integration.

The sudden border closure as a result of that case dealt a devastating blow to Canada’s cattle industry, and especially to the three Prairie provinces, which contain over 80 percent of Canada’s cow and calf producers and feedlot operators. Alberta has about 50 percent of this industry. In December 2003 the US discovered its first BSE case from a cow imported from Canada and as a result Canada lost its beef export market.

Both Canada and the United States suffered multi-billion dollar losses from the crisis, but given the difference in market size, the losses had a much greater impact in Canada. Exact cost estimates for the Canadian industry are difficult to make, but total losses in farm cash receipts for cattle and calves are believed to be in the CDN$6 to $7 billion range in the 2003-2005 period.

American beef exports losses amount to US $5 billion over the same time period.

Careful rule-making on the part of the US Department of Agriculture has paid off for Canada. Since the US announced its decision to partially re-open the border, three more Canadian BSE cases have been found but have not affected trade.

“The fact that nearly half a million cattle under 30 months were exported to the US in the second half of 2005 suggests that the Canadian-American trade in cattle and beef will likely return to its high levels before the BSE crisis struck,” Moens noted.

Moens recommends that what remains of the subsidies introduced during this crisis to Canadian cow and calf producers, feedlots, and other incentives given to the meatpacking industry should be phased out quickly, as they may give rise to American trade action or complicate the USDA’s re-opening of the border to older cattle. New federal or provincial subsidies to the industry for disposing of “specified risk materials” should be avoided for the same reason.

He also points out that diversifying Canadian beef exports from North America to Asia is difficult and offers limited opportunities. Under NAFTA, Canada and Mexico both have free access to the American beef market (unlike the non-NAFTA countries which face quotas) and this market will again prove to be the most profitable one for Canada.

From 2003 to 2006, both Canada and the US added regulations on meatpacking and animal feed. Canada’s regulations are stricter and produce more risk reduction for BSE than the US regulations. Given that contaminated feed and infected cows originating from Alberta still pose a small risk to free trade, it is important for Canada to keep this edge. Canada should follow this development with confidence-building measures such as joint USDA-Canadian Food Inspection Agency monitoring and inspection of Canadian facilities. Canada should ensure that the compliance rate of its feed mills consistently exceeds US rates.

Canada should also apply its efforts to developing a stronger NAFTA working relationship. Working closely with the USDA on practical harmonization steps is a key interest for Canada. Given the renewed closure of the Japanese market to US exporters after a December 2005 incident in which specified risk materials were found in a US shipment to Japan, the US is also keen to establish a stable regulatory regime.

“There are good prospects that in 2006, the US will propose a rule to open the border to Canadian cattle and beef over 30 months, effectively bringing the market back to its free, transparent, and competitive position,” concluded Moens.
- 30 -