Immigration

The linked story demonstrates why we need deep immigration reform for the LEGAL immigration process. Without a reasonable legal process, it's just tossing money down a well to combat illegal immigration. In this case, you have a couple who followed the legal process, and then did not correct a marital status change. In effect, they were penalized for getting married, since, you know, we don't like stable families in this country.

This is actually relatively common--if a couple applies under a fiancee visa and then choose to get married in the long-ass interim, they may be charged with immigration fraud and face deportation, even if it is discovered long after the fact.

The economics of the immigration dynamic make it even more ridiculous--people will continue to come and employers will continue to hire them as long as there is economic opportunity and demand. It makes no sense to stop that dynamic--which has bolstered our economy for centuries--with a muddled, maddeningly, life ruining, family separating legal immigration process.

The process should be quick and simple:

1. Register and demonstrate interest in coming to the U.S.

2. Demonstrate a plan to survive and work within the country.

3. Check-in several times over the next half-decade to confirm that your family unit is working and productive.

4. Receive citizenship.

With a streamlined, easy legal process, it will HELP sort the tiny minority of those who have ill-intention for our country from the massive majority who will provide the hard-working, adventureous spirit that all waves of immigration--no matter their ethnicity or national origin--have provided us.

But if not, let's be real. It would take me about 5 seconds to decide to illegal enter this country if it was necessary to keep my family together and fed.

And I speak from familial experience.

Interesting:

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.

My name is Jim Vorel, I'm a journalism student. I'm doing a story on the New Sanctuary Movement, which is a movement sponsored by the Community United Church of Christ here which is looking to shelter illegal immigrants and migrant workers who are in danger of being deported from the country. Basically like one of those old movies where a guy runs into a church yelling "Sanctuary!" Anyway. I've been interviewing people about it all around campus. And everyone loves it. They all think it's a great idea. I came here hoping that I might be able to find a little balance. The date which this article is due is approaching very quickly, and it is not at all balanced. So therefore I was looking for someone to shed some light on the other side of the issue, if you were interested. I tried to create my own username to create a thread to this effect, but after signing up for one, my password never arrived to my email, and I am unfortunately in something of a hurry. So I guess what I'm asking is, do you think it's right for a church to illegally house illegal immigrants to prevent a family from being split up? And would you be interested in a short interview about it? It would really help me out.

If you or anyone else here with a strong opinion, would briefly talk to me, please email me at jvorel2@uiuc.edu. Hell, just give me a call at (708) 606-8510. I'm just a journalism student looking to be as objective as possible.

Thanks,

Jim Vorel

Reading through Language Log today, I came across this story. It tells of an increasing number of previously Spanish-only churches beginning to provide services in English, to reach out to "meet the demands of second- and third-generation Hispanics, keep families together and reach non-Latinos." This story continues the tradition of new immigrant groups adopting American customs and language in the second and third generations (e.g., the Italians, the Irish, the Germans, the Chinese, the Japanese). It also removes the cultural arguments of a national language (e.g., "preserve English"). Of course, it doesn't remove the fiscal benefits of a national language - reducing the costs of translating all government documents into multiple languages.

Sen. Sam Brownback's campaign for President, if it was ever really alive, really deserves to die a quiet death now:

Say, how come there are 47 yes votes when the roll says there were only 46? Ah, my friends, that’s because Sam Brownback turned out to be the weaseliest “no” vote of all. He voted yes right at the very beginning, during the alphabetical vote, probably thinking that cloture was going to pass. Then, when it died, he switched to a no. I almost wish he was pulling more than 1% in the presidential polls so we could hammer him into oblivion with that. As it is, I’ve captured his moment of shame for posterity on video. I think that’s him in the red circle; you’ll see him gesture to the clerk just before she announces his deep, principled opposition to amnesty.

Shameless.

UPDATE: Brownback's reaction to the people now paying attention to him:

Sam Brownback offers an additional comment on his voting yes, then no:

"I wanted to signal that I am supportive of comprehensive immigration reform, but that now is not the time and this is not the bill."

His staff says this was done intentionally, and that he deliberately voted first and loudly.

Even more shameless.

Heh.

Does everybody benefit from the demise of the Senate immigration deal?

John McCain: "Yes! They just took away this issue that has the base hating me, so the only thing they hate me over is campaign finance reform and the Gang of 14!"

Mitt Romney: "Yes! They just took away this issue that I was being accused of flip-flopping on! Now I'm just accused of flip-flopping on my health care plan, and Iraq benchmarks, and abortion, and gay marriage, and..."

Rudy Giuliani: "Yes! They just took away this issue that I was opposed to, but never quite that outspoken about, with a bill that I insisted didn't have the provisions I demanded, but bill proponents insisted was in there! Now I can still talk about the need to "secure the border" while referring warmly to our collective memory of Ellis Island!"

Tom Tancredo: "Whoohoo, this looks kind of like an actual policy win! Now let's go after those darned legal immigrants!"

Every Democratic Nominee: "Whoohoo, we don't have to let the public know that we support amnesty, or as we prefer to call it, the Democratic Party Base Expansion Program!"

Okay, I guess somebody loses:

Fred Thompson: "Dangit, I was gonna whup everybody over votin' for this mess."

Indeed.

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.

From the Champaign County Chamber of Commerce:

Immigration Reform: Myths and Implementation
An Issue Forum for Chamber Members

Date: Thursday, July 13, 2006
Time: 4:00 through 5:30 p.m.
Location: CHAMPAIGN COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ”“ Large Conference Room - 1817 S. Neil Street, Suite 201, Champaign, IL

Both the United States House of Representatives and Senate have passed bills that would provide for the most substantial overhaul of immigration law in 20 years. The next step in the process is for the Senate and House leaders to meet in conference to try to come to an acceptable compromise on their separate bills. Both pieces of legislation require employers to participate in an electronic employment eligibility verification system (EEEVS) that would distinguish between legal and illegal workers. The House version requires employer participation in EEEVS within three to six years. The Senate however demands a shorter timeline for compliance: within 18 months. What remains certain at this point is that an entirely new mandated hiring process for employers and an increase in penalties and paperwork will be coming. Also some employers could also be in danger of losing workers””nearly 5% of the workforce is undocumented and many of them are working “on the books” with false documents.

The Chamber's Government Council is sponsoring a discussion forum open to all Chamber members to share their thoughts and concerns about immigration reform legislation and its impact on the business community.

The forum is free to Chamber members and while reservations are not required they are appreciated. To reserve your seat, please contact Norma Wesley by telephone at 217.359.1791 or by e-mail at NormaW@champaigncounty.org.  For more information, contact Pat Shae by phone or PatS@champaigncounty.org.