Nothing changes, especially in the debate over illegal immigration.

In March 1997, we wrote: “Providing jobs to illegal immigrants is against federal law. Yet whenever that fact comes up, it is simply dismissed with the statement, ‘we have no way of telling an illegal from a legal.’ Suspicion is, of course, never aroused, even with the need for a translator when it comes to the hard questions, such as, ‘What’s your name?’

“Politicians, while appearing tough to the American people, protect major political contributors who profit from the labor of illegal immigrants... So this vocal group attacking the evils of illegal immigration protects, for profit, those hiring the very people they promise to keep out. Hidden from the public is that there is a legal way for foreign agricultural workers to temporarily enter the U.S. It’s called the H2A temporary and seasonal in nature agricultural worker visa. But it’s the U.S. agricultural employer, his agent or association that needs to apply.

“In the entire U.S., a total of 1,438 H2A visa petitions were issued in the first seven months of 1996, according to the INS. This is a mere pittance considering there are more than 11,000 agricultural enterprises in California alone, and greater than 144,000 throughout the country. Having a legal method to acquire needed labor, why would agricultural enterprises choose to break the law? Could it be because H2A applicants must comply with a series of requirements, one of which reads: ‘this does not relieve the employer from providing to H2A workers at least the same level of minimum benefits, wages and working conditions which must be offered to U.S. workers?’

“Other employers, in industries that can prove there is a shortage of U.S. workers, have similar INS mechanisms for legally bringing in alien workers. There is simply no excuse for breaking the law by hiring illegal immigrants, other than it’s easier and cheaper and therefore more profitable. So citizens throw stones at illegal immigrants, vote for propositions and candidates reflecting popular anger, light up the border, police airports, attend meetings, urge more laws, more border patrol, call out the National Guard and more.” (sandiegometro.com/1997/mar/connection.html).

Then in September 1999, in an article titled “Legalize Guest Workers” we wrote: “Agriculture’s need for migrant foreign workers remains a dilemma to our elected representatives in Congress. To win elections, they’ve found it necessary to be seen as opposed to illegal immigration, calling for severe crackdowns at the border, building fences, lighting the border and posting military guards, while accepting major financial contributions from agricultural entities that are the major employers of illegal immigrants.

“… Voters want illegal immigration stopped, and stopped now. Politicians know they went too far: What would happen if those workers were stopped from crossing the border? Who would step in and take over? Congress, behind closed doors, already is discussing providing amnesty to agricultural workers illegally working in the United States.

“The problem is that Congress is trying to serve two masters: agricultural political contributors and U.S. taxpayers. And just as the 1996 immigration reform act proved a loser for taxpayers, I expect the same from what Congress is now privately considering.

“Were the U.S. and Mexico to enter into an agreement that would allow temporary immigration in an orderly and predetermined method, Mexico would surely, as it did during the Bracero program, have agreement clauses guaranteeing sanitary living conditions, health benefits, and safe transportation and working conditions…. These would be cost factors to the agricultural sectors, the underlying reason the Bracero program was canceled in 1963. It becomes cheaper not to have an agreement.

“What’s wrong with making a straightforward business deal? People need jobs; this country has temporary jobs available. Work out a deal that is fair to taxpayers, employers and workers. It hinges on Congress deciding which master it will serve: monied special interests or taxpayers. I sure don’t like our odds.” (sandiegometro.com/1999/sep/connection.html).

So here we are in 2006, and nothing’s changed. Politicians, elected and wannabe, continue to use the $6-a-day-worker in search of the $6-an-hour-job as the scapegoat in their attempt to continue serving two masters.

In the 50th Congressional District, Republican Brian Bilbray has unleashed television commercials reminiscent of the 1994 Wilson era campaign – he will save us from the dastardly invasion. While receiving several hundred thousand dollars working for the anti-Third World immigration organization FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), Bilbray gave some speeches in the Midwest claiming he lost his congressional seat to Susan Davis because illegal immigrants had illegally voted for her.

Maybe once the election is over, we can get down to some genuine reform. I’m not holding my breath.

Patrick Osio Jr. can be reached at posiojr@sandiegometro.com. The veteran consultant also has issued The Mexican Perspective, an intensive primer on business culture and protocol. Copies are available at http://www.hispanicvista.com/sales/book_sale.htm.