I've not talked very much about immigration. I've got some vague ideas about what I'd like to see happen, but I've not studied the issue enough to be completely set in my opinions at the moment. But I saw an article on Drudge today that caught my eye, so I thought I'd tell you what I was thinking, and see how you think I've gotten it wrong.
Here's the latest immigration "reform" being discussed in Washington:
CURRENT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
- They could come forward immediately and receive probationary legal status.
- Bill creates a four-year, renewable "Z" visa for those present within the U.S. unlawfully before Jan. 1, 2007.
- Undocumented immigrants may adjust status to lawful permanent residence once they pay $5,000 in fees and fines and their head of household returns to their home country.
And, via Drudge, here's what the French are talking about:
France's minister of immigration and national identity, a new ministry created by President Nicolas Sarkozy, has ruled out legalizing undocumented immigrants en masse.
The new ministry said today that government policy would be dictated by firmness and pragmatism.
"We have to put aside massive legalization. It doesn't work and it penalizes, even immigrants," Brice Hortefeux said on Europe 1 radio.
I'm not anti-immigration. If someone wants to come to America and pursue better opportunities, then I'm all for it. Immigration makes us a better country.
As I've said, I'm not an expert on immgration policy, but generally I think our quotas should be greatly relaxed, and that our immigration procedures need to be streamlined to make legal immigration easier. I think there needs to be some sort of mandatory assimilation, which includes some English and some education about American laws, the Constitution, etc., which appears to be a focus of the new French policy.
Our federal immigration policies are so absurd and so poorly administered that it provides an incentive for people to immigrate illegally. It should be easier and more rewarding to immigrate legally, and there should be penalties for immigrating illegally - deportation, fines, absolutely no entitlements or government benefits, and restricted access to legal immgration in the future.
And amnesty, which is what this latest compromise is all about, is too rewarding of illegal immigration, and too dismissive of legal immgration. It does nothing to relax quotas and improve the process, while sending the message that if future immgrants want to become legal, the easiest path is to immigrate illegally, and there will be almost no consequences.
$5,000 in fees and fines is pennies compared to the attorney and application fees typically incurred through legal immigration.
I'd be supportive of a temporary amnesty. Up until such and such date all current illegal immigrants have to apply for a temporary visa and register with local officials. After that date anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant absolutely must be turned in by local law enforcement when no proof of residency is available during traffic stops or other law enforcement interactions. Likewise with any other government facility such as education, social services, etc. A new federal law that prohibits social services to those who cannot show proof of residency to stop these various states from making it so easy to live here illegally.
Furthermore I'd open up the work visa and immigration quotas and reform the system so that it can handle the load of those wanting to work in the US legally without anymore of the months or years long delays that only help to encourage illegal immigration by those desperate souls needing financial opportunities. Better that they are here legally and documented and screened.
Additionally more funding for the border patrol to help stop those who, in spite of the new ease and speed of access, still have reason to avoid being screened at the border as they are probably the real threats we should be concerned with.
As much as it drives people up the wall that these illegal immigrants have been allowed to cheat the system without repurcussion the sheer scope of the problem is so out of hand that it would be impossible to take the "round 'em up and deport 'em" route without another miserable and ghastly mess like "Operation Wetback" (actual name) from the Ike era. Personally I think the $5000 fine alone is only going to result in mass evasion of the new law which since it includes a fine, aka punishment, is hardly an amnesty and a bit harsh for what amounts to a trespassing and paperwork violation.
For those caught in identity theft scams and other crimes they should face the penalties of those crimes, regardless, of their immigration status. As for the immigration issue itself I believe we need to face the issue with pragmatism as opposed to the more emotional retribution arguments demanding harsh and severe punishment such as permanent deportation matched with prison time. If we want these foreign workers documented, we have to make it appealing to them to do so. Demanding more money than some of them make in 6 months or more will hardly entice them to come forward. Trying to hunt down millions of people scattered throughout the United States in some mass purge strategy is, to me, highly unrealistic and a bit cruel under the circumstances. They aren't al Qaeda. They're al-looking for opportunity.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I have serious problems with this bill. I understand that the President deleted a provision that would have required illegal immigrants to pay back taxes. That, in the past, was one of the reasons he gave us to support him on this issue. Secondly, does anyone seriously think that the government will require illegal immigrants to pay the $5000? How will all of the uneducated people "doing the jobs that Americans won't do" come up with that? I anticipate that the government will waive that provision for hardship cases, and I expect many of those cases. Third, there appears to be no talk about the effect this will have on Social Security, etc. or the two and a half trillion dollar cost of this bill. How can anyone justify making so many people eligible for Social Security benefits when that system is already on the verge of bankruptcy, and our government can't afford the promises its has made to its own citizesn. I agree that something has to be done, but this bill isn't it.
If an illegal has been working here for 10 years, paying Soc. Sec taxes with his name but a stolen number, is he going to have any claim to those SS credits? (I can just see this claim coming.)
redstate, that's a good point. If the illegal used someone else's number, and that "account" contains those benefits, how would the government sort through who gets what?
They couldn't do it efficiently. They'd probably just assign some credits based on years in the country or something, just to be "fair". That $5,000 will be looking like quite a bargain.
I'd like to see a constitutional amendment that abolishes the automatic citizenship by birth provision. That alone will remove a lot of the incentive to immigrate illegaly.
Money paid into SS under false identities should be lost, null and void to the payer. It's that simple. If anything that information should be used to locate and prosecute offenders.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
There was a time when our immigration laws were really set by other countries i.e. India, Japan, China, Italy etc. They did not want to lose their brightest after getting an education in the USA so had us put restrictions on the number of people and the amount of money they could bring into this country. I believe, in some cases that still may be true.
As for illegals from Mexico and countries in Central and South America, the situation is very different. Those countries have chosen not to take care of their general population like the USA, Canada, Europe, etc. In fact their leaders rely on the USA and other countries to support their general population to secure more wealth for the rulers. Yet we accept this greedy, oppressive attitude from these countries, regardless of who is in the White House, which further encourages the leader not to take care of their citizens needs.
I know souce control as well as prevention are sound economic business concepts but in politics they gain few votes. Therefore our elected officials have limited knowledge and even less incentive to apply such concepts to the immigration problem. It is a fact that all the voter flash is in the authorship of a solution, so our politicians will keep promoting solutions through legislation as it is their preferred vote getting tool. So let the lastest solution flesh itself out so we can implement another is a few more years when the problem gets even bigger as we have done in the past.
Prairie Biker... I'd like to see one that specifically exempts those who are not within the US legally from having children automatically granted citizenship. This as opposed to repealing that provision completely which I'd oppose mainly to preserve the protection for others.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Exactly, Glock.
Well, for all the good it will do, I've contacted the offices of Obama, Durbin and Tim Johnson about this pathetic excuse for legislation. Obama didn't even vote on the cloture issue, although apparently most of the Presidential candidates didn't either. I don't think that Congress understands the depth of anger out there among the general population on this topic and on the subject of the political elites ignoring the voters.
The NLPC says immigration bill would make taxpayers pay legal bills of illegal aliens seeking amnesty. So I guess they don't have to worry about that. Clinton apparently intends to add some ammendment for a trust fund to pay the fees they would pay anyhow. I guess we will be footing the bill for the whole thing.
The bill is on the net, truth laid bear has it with a commentary. I don't think I've heard one good thing about it except from the politicians, the special interest groups and some of the left.
yes, if the mexican us totalization agreement goes through. I'm not sure that bush has ever sent it to congress. He might have been waiting for this ...
The immigration bill is just another example of legislation that tries to please everyone and ends up pleasing no one. Frankly, I'm not at all surprised that the Senate came up with something that is unwieldy, and likely, unworkable. After all, these people can't even balance a budget.
(Hey, dumbells in Washington, a balanced budget is one in which income equals outgo!)