Recently, the Bush administration floated a proposal in which illegal Mexican immigrants–of which there are roughly three million in this country–might apply for legal status, likely to be granted based on things like work history, length of residency, et cetera. Now, needless to say, this affords Bush considerable cachet with Mexican-American voters and pushes the Democrats on the defensive in an increasingly important issue; hey, political considerations aside, it may even be good public policy.
Except…am I the only one who sees Orwellian implications here? The way I understand the proposed program is, basically, as follows: illegal Mexican immigrants show up, provide documentation regarding themselves, and apply to be made legal. Of those who apply, it’s fairly safe to say that many will not qualify under the criteria, and thus be denied legal status. So…now the federal government will have the names and addresses of all illegal aliens whose requests were turned down. (If someone can correct me on the finer points of this policy, by the way, please do so–my OP may well be moot.) My question is: wouldn’t it be terrifically easy for the INS to then deport all the applicants who got rejected for legalization? Other than (possibly) adverse public opinion, what would stop this from happening? Lack of resources? Lack of impetus?
I dunno; it strikes me as similar, in a way, to a police station inviting all felons for whom outstanding warrants exist to come on in and have their case considered for amnesty: the potential punitive use of such a tactic seems to me to be nearly as potent as the amnesty itself.
The thing is, nobody would just walk into the INS office and report himself. Not without counsel.
As with every other immigration amnesty, the legislation involved would have to explicitly specify which are the criteria (X number of years, out of which Y at work; W family members already are US Citz, etc.) and the procedural requirements (Z documents in triplicate, N references, etc.) for “normalization” and if there would be sub-thresholds for acquiring legal residence vs. a temporary work visa vs. the new status of non-inmigrant “guestworker.”
Then, an “education and outreach” campaign would be ordered. Public agencies would get together with labor, inmigrant-aid, civil-rights and other workplace and community-based organizations along with inmigration lawyers to disseminate that information and advice the undocumented workers on what they can expect and what is required.
So, those interested would know ahead of time what they need to have in their application package and what documentation they need on hand if there’s a hearing. Those who don’t have a chance, will be told by their advisor to just not bother. And the government’s hoping they won’t – there’s enough work already even if everyone has the right papers, trying to winnow out which are wise guys trying to pull a fast one. The INS is not that big.
There would certainly be provisions in the law to the effect that merely picking up an application, calling in to get information or downloading an Announcement does not put you in any jeopardy – like, that anyone can show up and ask for the application blanks and they have to give them out NQA. As with many prior amnesties, much of the actual picking up and filling of forms and counseling would happen at community centers, churches, law offices, etc. so you have that added layer of insulation.
A “fess up first, THEN we’ll tell you if you’re eligible for a break” fishing expedition as was posited in the OP would be such a spectacular failure operationally, politically, and legally that it’s not even a serious consideration.
Gadarene, you’re entertaining the possibility that the Bush Administration really doesn’t want all those greasy Mexicans here and is using the proposed amnesty as a pretext for rounding them up and sending them home. Although many on the right would like to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border, I don’t think Bush is in that camp, because of his strong pro-business entanglements. Big business was behind the last great wave of immigration (from Southern and Eastern Europe in 1880-1920) because it wanted to keep down the price of unskilled labor, and big business is most likely in favor of amnesty for Mexican illegals now. It’s a win-win for Bush - he gets a big pat on the back from his fatcat supporters while looking like a friend of minorities to the wider audience. The only guy who loses is the American citizen with no education or skills, who now has to compete with three million more people for the same number of jobs down at the chicken rendering factory.
And that would be wrong because…? If they are in this country illegally, this seems like a good way for some of them to become legal citizens, while others will be returned, which is what happens to a lot of them anyway. Instead of all of them living in daily fear of being deported, they’ll know if they come forward that they will either stay or be deported; on one hand they might be lucky, on the other at least they don’t have to worry when any longer… As for ethics, I think INS would be justified in deporting those whose applications have been turned down, but there would be nothing forcing a person to come forward so if s/he doesn’t believe that they’d pass critria they probably wouldn’t risk it, right? I also don’t think that INS would be any more effective at keeping those people who are deported on this basis from returning than they are now at keeping people from trying to get into this country muliple times.
And does the subject line really say “two parrots with a leg” or am I rustier in Spanish than I thought?