Department of Homeland Security officials, saying that Illinois is complicating their efforts to reduce illegal immigration, have sued the state to overturn an Illinois law that virtually blocks employers from taking part in a program designed to verify whether new employees are legally entitled to work in the U.S.
"The state of Illinois has now made it illegal to comply with federal law," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in an interview. "That's not acceptable as a matter of the Constitution, and it's not acceptable as a matter of our discharging our federal obligation to enforce the immigration laws."
In an unusually personal critique, Chertoff said the Illinois law, the Right to Privacy at Work Act, showcases the hypocrisy of politicians who slam the federal government for not enforcing immigration laws, then make it harder to do so.
"We're beginning to see the schizophrenic nature of the way some politicians are looking at it," Chertoff said. "They're now coming back and saying, 'We want you to enforce the law, but we don't want you to do anything that would actually lead to enforcement.'"
The high profile taken by the department in filing the lawsuit in federal court in Springfield -- calling attention to it through press releases and having Chertoff speak out -- suggests the agency is sending a warning to other states and municipalities that may be considering a law like the one in Illinois.
Discuss.
Except you can't be hypocritical for not sticking to someone else's principles.
Let me lay it out:
1) An actual feasible legal immigration process which encourages people to enter legally. Basically, assuming the following measures are also put into place, documented, open borders with the exceptions of criminals and non-profiled security threats.
2) Removal of discriminatory national quotas in favor of a benchmark system to move from entrance to citizenship.
3) Consistent citizenship requirements that are not based on spoken language, place of birth or nationality of parents. But rather on work and societal contribution (work defined broadly to include thoughtful child-rearing, etc.)
4) Work protections for undocumented workers making them equal to documented workers. (This will remove employer incentive to appeal to undocumented workers. )
5) Legalization processes for those who simply out of ignorance of the process do not file, but have fulfilled all of the citizenship requirements.
6) Despite no language requirement, funding for free English classes.
7) Mandatory civil/military service for all American citizens of at least one year.
8) Better treatment, conditions and incentives for military and civil service personell.
We talk about equality and respect for the society. But why is it that I can be born in the country and do nothing for it and be a citizen, but someone who has moved heaven and earth for the good of the country cannot?
7) Mandatory civil/military service for all American citizens of at least one year.
Generally the rest doesn't bug me, though I'm not sure if there might be some implementation hang ups that might need to be considered... (perhaps quotas for immigration visas but none for work visas? Need to brainstorm on this a bit more.) But mandatory civil/military service? I just cannot see the justification for mandatory civil service when involuntary servitude is prohibited under the Constitution. For military service the power of Congress to maintain a military may allow a draft but it certainly does not seem appropriate unless we are in such a desperate wartime situation that no other alternative will ensure the nation's defense. Otherwise we will be needlessly trampling upon one of the other reasons we established this government, to secure the blessings of liberty.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I agree with almost all your suggestions, except for point #7 and I'd add significantly strengthened penalties for both business that hire illegal immigrants and for illegal immigrants who use fake documents to gain entry and employment.
Strengthened penalties will do no good. We have penalties now, and they're virtually unenforced.
"Strengthened penalties will do no good. We have penalties now, and they're virtually unenforced."
True. Nothing about our current immigration laws is enforced; that's a large part of the problem.
So I'll clarify by asking for stiffer penalties and actual enforcement of them.
No, there are no penalities which we could implement which are both humane and worse than the inhumane conditions many face in their countries of origin. If that were a feasible solution, don't you think the conditions on the trip across the desert would discourage people? Unless we plan on doing something worse than 50/50 chance of death from dehydration, I don't think there's much hope in that direction.
Come from the other direction--if the legal process is actually tailored for hard working contributors and their families to come in one piece and in timely fashion, there will be less need to devote resources to enforce immigration law. After all, lazy people don't risk their lives to travel thousands of miles for below minimum wage jobs...
We ask those who seek citizenship to serve our country in various ways unless they happen to have been born here or to American parents. It seems ridiculous to compare a choice arrangement in which someone who intends to enjoy the benefits of American citizenship for their entire life must choose from myraid possibilities to serve the country that encompass all walks of life with virtually slavery with little choice of work environment or content.
The current military system where we higher people to lie to teenagers and cut real dollars in financial aid to ensure that we have a lot of poor folks unhappily serving overseas to fight our wars seems far worse than a draft to me. But maybe that's because recruiters have already dragged off two of my MINORS from the classroom to attend boot camp.
xian -
1) An actual feasible legal immigration process which encourages people to enter legally. Basically, assuming the following measures are also put into place, documented, open borders with the exceptions of criminals and non-profiled security threats.
This is actually what we have now. If you use the system. I'm not sure what you mean by open borders though. Do you mean letting everybody else in? I hope you see that that isn't a good idea.
2) Removal of discriminatory national quotas in favor of a benchmark system to move from entrance to citizenship.
This is a brilliant idea. We have benchmarks, very low benchmarks in fact. We also have quotas that are based in a large part on our trade agreements and military alliances.
3) Consistent citizenship requirements that are not based on spoken language, place of birth or nationality of parents. But rather on work and societal contribution (work defined broadly to include thoughtful child-rearing, etc.)
Spoken language is not part of the requirement, but the test they give is only in English, I believe. Here are the current requirements. Personally, I would like to see the Constitution amended to eliminate the birth provision. That also would get rid of a huge incentive for illegal immigration.
4) Work protections for undocumented workers making them equal to documented workers. (This will remove employer incentive to appeal to undocumented workers. )
Maybe, but it greatly increases the benefits of becoming an undocumented worker. I see this as a huge negative. I would prefer to see something like the Bracero Program of the 1940s-60s brought back to allow more visas for unskilled laborers.
5) Legalization processes for those who simply out of ignorance of the process do not file, but have fulfilled all of the citizenship requirements.
I believe this exists. If you are already a permanent resident alien, I believe that there are no filing deadlines.
6) Despite no language requirement, funding for free English classes.
This was in the Immigration Reform Act of 1986. I don't know how long the funding was supposed to last however. I agree, they should bring it back.
7) Mandatory civil/military service for all American citizens of at least one year.
Even though I am a veteran, I believe this is a huge problem. In my view, every person who has a job or is staying out of jail and contributing positively to our society is already actively fulfilling this requirement. It takes all kinds in our society; and if you're working, then you're getting it done.
8) Better treatment, conditions and incentives for military and civil service personell (sic).
Military personnel generally have it pretty good, at least us Air Force pukes did. We had full service facilities on our bases that were free to everyone (except the movie theater, golf course, and use of the auto hobby shop/storage yard). One thing that always bothered me is that military housing was built from the same plans and out of the same materials that government subsidized housing was. It was good enough for us (and it really was good housing). But, the bottom line is that when you volunteer to serve in the military, you are agreeing to go anywhere, at anytime, to do what you're told, to accomplish a potentially dangerous mission, that you may not come home from. Deal with it. I can't speak for civil service personnel, but I understand they have a good pay scale and a strong union.
We talk about equality and respect for the society. But why is it that I can be born in the country and do nothing for it and be a citizen, but someone who has moved heaven and earth for the good of the country cannot?
Because, this is America where you have the freedom to go as high, and as low, as you want. It's up to you. What you are missing though, is that not everyone wants to be a citizen. A lot of people just want to come for jobs, make money, then go home for awhile and then come back. I know a well educated (has a degree, just doesn't speak English) guy who is working here at an otherwise menial job who is actually putting his kids through college back in Mexico City. When they graduate, he'll expects he'll go home. If you want another interesting aside, consider that during the detention of Japanese during WWII immigration quotas closed out Asians so that fully 1/3 of detainees where actually illegal immigrants.
1. The current system is by no means feasible. Whether you think they should or not, there is zero chance that most people will agree to wait years for the legal process to reunite their family. There is no need for such a convoluted process, nor would I wait in that situation myself.
4. There must be incentives from both directions for a process to occur. If we mandated that undocumented workers were to be paid twice what documented workers are, there would be extreme incentive for undocumented workers, but no one would be interested in hiring them. Hence, no problem.
5. You are incorrect. If you misfile a single form, there is a reasonable chance that you will be found in violation and deported for at least ten years before you can refile.
7. I agree, and that's why I view working (widely defined) as a neccessary requirement for citizenship. However, I think there is an added benefit to teaching citizens that work contribution is a vital part of patriotism.
8. Sorry about the typo. Yeah, I agree, but because of the sacrifices being made, I think we should reward you all better. If we did so, we might be able to recruit more effectively without simply deceiving people as to what they are getting into.
9. Sure, there are always folks who just want to work. But if we have to choose, we should seek to admit those who will remain in the country in the long haul. If we are less restrictive in who gets to join the road to citizenship, we won't need to appeal to temporary workers for labor. My point was that we don't indeed make it possible for anyone to go as high or low as they desire and are willing to work. That's a noble goal that I believe that the majority of us have in our hearts. But birth and parental origin requirements negate thoses goals.
Could you clarify the points you are getting at with the aside? I didn't quite get it. It's a rich topic. You are completely right that people were restricted on the basis of race and nationality. Of course, a significant portion of the those interned in concentration facilities (concentration camps not death camps) were multi-generational American citizens who had entered before exclusion.
I think it's instructive that we mostly agree on these issues. It shows how both major parties have driven a wage between logical policy and people's political identification.