Should It Disqualify Her for the Job? : Baird flap raises questions--but not about her suitability
The revelation that President-elect Bill Clinton’s nominee for attorney general, Zoe Baird, employed illegal immigrants as domestics has not caused nearly the public outcry that some had expected. That, in itself, is the most interesting thing about this political embarrassment.
The relatively low-key public reaction reflects the reality that millions of Americans do the very same thing Baird did--pay illegals to work as nannies, domestics or gardeners. And that reality reflects the mixed feelings that many Americans have about illegal immigration. We know full well that it poses problems for this country. But at the same time we know it provides economic benefits to many otherwise law-abiding businesses and people--both the immigrants themselves and the U.S. citizens who employ them. Until Congress finds a better way to deal with the need that thousands of individuals, families and businesses have for foreign workers, many U.S. employers will face the same bind that the attorney general-designate was in.
THE EFFECT: Baird privately told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will consider her nomination in public hearings next week, that for two years she and her husband, a Yale Law School professor who also should have known better, employed a woman from Peru as a nanny for their children. They also briefly employed the Peruvian woman’s husband as a driver. In doing so, they violated the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 and tax laws that require employers to withhold Social Security taxes from their workers’ pay.
Baird fessed up to her employment of illegals to defuse a potential scandal that could have been fatal to her nomination. As head of the Justice Department she will oversee the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, the chief agency that enforces immigration laws. After all, it wouldn’t do to have her be an unrepentant employer of illegal immigrants. That is one reason she and her husband paid the back taxes on their illegal employees, in a lump sum, after Clinton nominated her.
Is this minor scandal troubling? Yes. Should it embarrass Clinton and the Bairds? Most certainly. Should it disqualify Baird from being attorney general? We think not.
For, having admitted her wrongdoing and having made amends, Baird--who is otherwise qualified to head the Justice Department--will have some real incentive to push a refinement of IRCA, a well-intentioned law that was supposed to stop illegal immigration to this country but has clearly failed to do so.
THE CAUSE: The main reason that migration anywhere--and not just into the United States--is so hard to control is because the conditions and behavior that cause it respond more to the laws of economics than to those drawn up by legislatures. The main lure for migrants is jobs. When jobs are available, migratory flows increase. When they aren’t, the flows decline. Case in point: Current INS arrest statistics and other indicators of migration flow reflect the fact that illegal immigration to this country has fallen off in the last two years as a result of the recession.
It’s to be noted that when Congress enacted IRCA in 1986, exceptions were made in the law for industries claiming to need immigrant workers. That’s because U.S. citizens would not take the jobs in question, most notably in agriculture. In effect, farm groups had the clout to back up their request for an exemption. There was no similar lobby for the many U.S. families that needed foreign workers for household jobs. The Baird situation and the lack of any great controversy over it suggest that the need still exists.
Congress should revisit IRCA and revise both the immigration and tax statutes so that Americans who need to hire foreigners as domestic help will not be violating federal laws.
