As I’ve mentioned before , the notion of how the U.S. should respond to the illegal immigration problem is one of the toughest areas for me to decide upon and one of those issues in which I’m embarassed to say I tend to agree with whichever well-informed and well-spoken person spoke last. My empathy is with the aliens, my practicality is with the law, and how you’d deport that many millions of people is beyond me but at the same time I think its ridiculous to grant amnesty to people who have flouted our laws. So I’ll admit my ignorance and indecision in the OP rather than reveal it through my opinions.
Instead I’ll hope to learn from your posts. What would you do if you were given control of this problem and all reasonable government backing of reasonable propositions.
The one thing I will say is that the Mexican government owes the U.S. government an indemnity for their publication of Guía del Migrante Mexicano, a guide to border crossing. (It’s available several places online but I’ll you choose a Google-op as the best links are to sites some Dopers may find objectionable.)
And I’ll also say that the people I know who are most opposed to amnesty aren’t rednecks or super-ardent conservatives, but legal aliens and naturalized citizens who paid fortunes and waited years to become American citizens or permanent residents legally.
Which leads up to what I’d do; I’d make it much easier to immigrate legally. They want in, we want them in - we say we don’t but actions speak louder than words - so raise the ceiling, drop or lower the price and don’t make it take years. America benefits from immigration, legal and otherwise; we don’t want ( non-political ) criminals, but outside of that anyone with the drive to move to a new country is likely to be useful. If anyone is hurt, it’s the countries the immmigrants come from.
I would establish an electronic means for employers to verify SSN’s provided by employees, indemnify employers against identification errors that might expose them to lawsuits by employees, then establish onerous penalties for employers who continue to employ illegal workers; seize their bank accounts, vehicles, machinery , inventory and real estate. Illegal aliens will deport themselves.
I would establish a harder line against immigration now, with the addition of options to let workers come across for seasonal work. Current illegal immigrants could get citizenship - but if they don’t, or don’t study and don’t learn enough English to get by, they will be ejected.
Amnesty for all but serious criminals. Instantaneous Social Security number check system It’s important to note that most opposed to amnesty are simply bigots.
Amnesty-by-fee. That five grand isn’t a bad idea: a lot of places would do loans, which would be paid back by hard working people. Eff sending them back, it wouldn’t work anyhow.
After that? Seal the border a bit harder, make la migra work on the remaining illegals who don’t want to be good citizens, send the criminals back, and start a program to help Mexico improve itself.
I have yet to hear any explanation for how it would be possible to deport the 8 to 12 million immigrants currently here without legal status. The government cannot monitor every single employer and real estate owner. There no Constitutional validity for such a thing, and the government is not competent enough to handle such a massive task.
Therefore I say that we offer a blanket amnesty to them all, conditional only on speaking English and demonstrating basic knowledge about our laws. Those who have committed crimes should be dealt with just as we deal with citizens who commit crimes.
Unless America can physically seal its southern border, it’s not going to happen. Build a wall or a canal or something. The cost of that would be ‘non-trivial’. People are looking for a better life, and are willing to risk everything for it. Everything I’ve read - both here and elsewhere indicates that the main problems with Mexico and Central America are corruption and the lack of rule of law. How about if America were to make an offer to Mexico and all the countries down to Panama: let us govern you for 50 years and in 50 years we’ll grant you statehood?
While I don’t think it would work, mainly since they wouldn’t be interested, that’s not a fair comparison. Our endevours in Iraq were crippled from the beginning due to the fact that we are the invaders, that we are blatantly in the wrong, and that we’ve killed a whole lot of them and wrecked the country; not fifty or a hundred years ago, but right now. They justifiably hate our guts, will oppose just about anything we do, good or bad, and are simply not in the mood to cooperate or be persuaded.
That’s simply not the same as working with people who’ve invited you in, when a substantial ( possibly even a majority ) portion of the population wants us to succeed. While I’m sure that Bush and the neocons would screw it up anyway, a more normal Administration ( or rather a 50 year string of them ) might well pull it off. After all, we could do quite a lot of good for them in fifty years, especially with most of the local people trying to help instead of resist and with far fewer people shooting at us and blowing up anything we build for them.
Also, given that such an arrangement is far more equitable than our attempt to conquer, loot and puppetize Iraq, whoever plans and implements such a deal is far more likely to mean well, and to be believed to mean well. One lesson of Iraq is that matters.
I’m not sure why you think this would be the case in Mexico. Even if you got a majority of the government (unlikely), I doubt we would be welcomed by more than a small minority of the population. No matter how well intended, or what the payoff down the road, nationalism will always rebuff rule by outsiders. Mexico has a history of this, and even if you explained how it would be different, I don’t think they would like it any more today than they did 140 years ago.
Which is why I said it probably wouldn’t work, because they aren’t interested. IF they accepted such an offer - not an ultimatum, or terms of surrender, or something just plain imposed by force - then that pretty much implies that they are interested.
Hmmm :dubious: - In my opinion, citing a white supremacy group (same group apparently - different names ) does not qualify as providing adequate backup for what you termed as “most”.