Here’s the scenario. You come across some kind of magical device that gives you the following powers.
You have mind control over all the members of the US Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Whatever you want to put in it regarding immigration into the US is fair game. Where it comes to associated things like needing to finance something with a tax increase, it’ll be done in a neutral manner (across the board increases or cuts, etc.). No trying to shoehorn in any policy not directly related to immigration. In addition, should the effects of the law prove disastrous, the current mind controlled members of congress could be voted out and replaced by others that you have no power over.
The POTUS will sign it, but as above, this holds for only the current POTUS. The next one might sign a new law if the current one proves disastrous.
The current SCOTUS members will uphold the law. A future SCOTUS consisting of justices appointed by a different POTUS and confirmed by a congress with different priorities can appointment justices of a different opinion.
Rather than getting caught up in what a court will uphold or strike down, how an executive will enforce a given law, and so on, I thought it would be interesting to cut all that out and focus on what the law should be. That being said, what would you all do in this situation?
I remember being taught back in high school that back in Olde England, it was the custom that if a serf ran away to a city he could be caught and dragged back to the estate on which he was held. But if he managed to stay uncaught for a year, he was considered free, and a citizen of the city he had escaped too.
Considering some of the other things I was taught in that school, it may or may not be exactly true, but I think that a similar custom, modified for current circumstances, should be applied to our own country.
When my great-grandparents came to the US, they were met by the man where the boat docked , given a brief medical check and turned loose. There wasn’t much in the way of social services they were eligible for at the time, but they had family and church to help them out, and they did all right.
Most of those who are coming to the US from south of the border would do all right if they could get the same treatment.
One: Elimination of anchor babies of the 14th Amendment so I hope the OP allows that in this hypothetical that constitutional amendments are ratified. However for children in this country that are not US citizens there will be paths for them to gain citizenship such as getting a high-school diploma, serving in the military, charity work, etc.
Two: Develop a system whereby potential immigrants can easily apply to come to the country. Part of it is dependent on what supports they already have in the United States whether family already here, job offers and potential employment. Note: Not having supports already established in the United States is not an automatic disqualifier.
Three: Do better to close the borders to crossing (like using drones). Better monitor visas to catch those that overstay or otherwise violate their visa. Those caught here illegally (see Four for exceptions) fly them back to their home country.
Four: Offer a path for those that are already here illegally and are obeying the law, working to support themselves and family, etc. to legal residence.
Effectively my comprehensive plan would deal with illegal immigrants already here fairly and offer easy ways for those that want to come here to improve their lives a route to do so. But not allow those that don’t want to use those ways to be in the United States. And it is not only criminals, drug-dealers, etc. It is also those that cannot support themselves - supporting the indigent is the responsibility of their native country. And to that last point, there would be allowance for political asylum that could include those that could need support from the United States and economic-support programs like the bracero program should be looked at but again as a government plan.
Well, the big problems aren’t a matter of law, they’re cultural. Until certain people understand that immigration is generally an overall good thing, there will still be complaints.
As for changes I’d make in law, the general theme is, “Immigrants welcome, and welcome to fully interact with our society.” With the usual caveats about criminals, terrorists, and the like.
First off, accept people as economic immigrants. “Because I want to work” should be an acceptable reason to immigrate. Give them work visas. Ask if they plan to stay only a short while, like seasonal agricultural workers, or if they plan to stay long-term. If they plan on long-term, encourage them to apply for citizenship, so they feel like they have a stake in the country.
Secondly, accept people as asylum seekers. But also give them work visas, so they can pay their own way. Again, ask if they plan to stay short or long term, as above. If they plan to go back once their country is stabilized, fine, but if they’re escaping something more permanent, let them apply for citizenship as above.
I’d allow all immigrants to come in, legal or illegal, but the illegal immigrants have to meet special requirements. They would be given something like 3-5 years’ time to successfully attain English proficiency AND get certification and proficiency in some skill/trade that the United States has a shortage of. For instance, nursing, piloting, Python/SQL/Tableau/Qlik/R/PowerBI, durable goods manufacturing, engineering, electricians, etc. Complete that, and they get a green card and a path to citizenship.
If they cannot get it in that time period, they are deported and have to pay a heavy fine for having stayed, and banned from future re-entry.
I disagree in part. The idea of a comprehensive plan has not been implemented in the US, at least when I’ve been alive from the 70’s. The government will pass a law regarding illegal immigrants already here, then separately pass a law on monitoring the borders a few years later. Think about the problems you face at work when one manager gives you direction on one part and a different manager gives you direction on a different part - not repeat over many managers.
There has not been a case that I can recall when the government started from the ground up with the idea of How do we allow in / keep in desirable immigrants and kick out / keep out undesirable immigrants. Of course one issue is the various definitions out there of desirable and undesirable.
But if you’re allowing them to enter, then they wouldn’t be “illegal” immigrants any more, would they?
In my plan, the only people who would be barred from entry are the criminals, et al. The whole idea of “illegal immigration” would be fundamentally altered. Why would any non-criminal person slip across the Rio Grande, if they could just walk up to the border, say, “I want to find a job”, and be let in?
But this did remind me of one point I forgot: make re-certification for such professions much easier. Sure, maintain our standards, but by and large, if someone worked as a professional, with a degree and all that, they can probably meet those standards, if we let them. Every other artificial barrier to such re-certification should be removed.
While I might be a little more exclusive, I think you absolutely nailed the ease of entry aspect. “You want to immigrate here? Go to that office right there for an interview.” If the person is not eligible or needs to gather more documentation then they walk back to their home country and no harm no foul.
I agree with most of what @Saint_Cad and @Horatius said, except the item Saint_Cad mentioned about the Birthright citizenship.
I may also add one item more, anyone that comes to work should also pay about 5% of their wages as a ‘migration tax’ that is to satisfy a lot of the exaggerator worrywarts that do not want to change things because they fear immigrants are just coming to get welfare.
That extra fee will serve also as an incentive to immigrants to get residence or citizenship because when they get it, that extra fee on their wages will be gone once citizenship is obtained. Or if they just want to get permanent residency, a 3% fee will remain.
Let me clarify (I thought I did). Under my plan, being born in the US does not automatically grant citizenship. An extreme example is mom crosses the Rio Grande during contractions so the baby is born on the north bank, But this is balanced with making it much easier to legally immigrate and though their child may not be a US citizen whether born in their home country or the US, those children have a simple and straightforward path to US citizenship such as earning a diploma from an accredited US high school. This does presume that they have their current constitutional protections ruled on by SCOTUS as residents.
Anyone who presents at a point of entry is presumptively entitled to admission provided they have “appropriate ID.” Where “appropriate ID” is lacking, the prospective entrant may apply for and be granted an “appropriate ID” within “a reasonable period of time,” and subject to a fee. However such fees may be waived for a period following entry for a first-time entrant, payable after a suitable period to allow the prospective entrant to earn sufficient income to cover the cost of the ID. The ID would include recording of sufficient biometric information for non-citizens to ensure that anyone claiming to be someone else can’t avail themselves of this process indefinitely to deceive authorities.
Those who may be denied entry are those who are credibly determined to be fugitives from justice from another country.
Mere criminal history itself, however, is not to be grounds for refusal of entry, apart (perhaps, maybe) from serious crimes such as treason against the US government (which can only have been committed by a prior US citizen) by someone who is now no longer a citizen (such as through voluntary revocation), and high level terrorists.
People should have a right to move freely about the Earth, not bound to artificially imposed notions of sovereignty and nor subject without recourse to any state’s supposed monopoly on violence. Borders are violence.
Out of curiosity, what do you think a so-called “anchor baby” born to an undocumented immigrant actually gets that undocumented immigrant in the ay of immigration status? What benefits do you think our current system affords them?
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe since the child as a US citizen cannot be deported, the parent(s) are allowed to stay regardless of their immigration status as to not separate the family. So to answer your question they are not deported.
That is false. The parent can be deported. Hardship to the citizen child can be considered, but is not determinative. The parent is free to take their US citizen child with them when they are deported, and the child can come back.
That’s how our current system works. So-called “anchor babies” are just another right wing boogeyman. Having a US citizen child by itself doesn’t get you a whole lot until the child is 21, and even then a past record of violating US immigration law may preclude any benefit to the parent.
And as regards to the 14th Amendment and jus soli, I might be willing to make this concession. When written it was phrased the way it was to give citizenship to the children of imported slaves. The idea of illegal immigration and anchor babies was not even considered. So at the very least my plan may have a bill to eliminate birthright citizenship then allowing it to go through the process to decide if the US should keep it or not. I’ll have to think about that
How often does that occur in real life vs. in theory under the law? And is it arbitrary meaning this President lets them stay while that President kicks them out. And the other issue is should someone get citizenship simply because their mother was in the US when they gave birth? Many countries think not.
You’re the one who thinks so-called “anchor babies” are such a serious problem that we need to overhaul not only our immigration system, but to undermine one of the most significant amendments to our constitution to do it, so how about, now that you’ve had the law explained to you, you provide me with some data on the terrible threat posed by so-called “anchor babies”?
You might also want to look into the (very real, not merely hypothetical or “boogeymanish”) problem of statelessness, and consider whether the US should be contributing to that problem.
IMHO, the US a does a lot of things wrong when it comes to immigration and nationality, but jus soli is one of a very few things the nation has gotten absolutely correct.
This is all off the top of my head (would require significantly increased funding for border security, courts, and processing):
A grace period of 2 years for non-criminal (aside from crossing the border) migrants already here to gain permanent legal status (barring criminal behavior) by paying a fine of $10,000 (children exempted – they don’t have to pay). All DACA folks can stay here permanently for free (again, barring criminal behavior). Non-violent criminal behavior by applicants can be excused (i.e. meaning they don’t have to be deported) with jail time and fines case-by-case.
Migrants who aren’t here yet can apply for asylum per current asylum laws (with greatly increased funding for processing and courts); if they don’t qualify for asylum, and have no indications of criminal behavior (plus pass a physical exam), then they can gain temporary legal status and, starting at month six in the US, pay $500 per month for the next twenty months to gain permanent legal status.
Dismantle ICE, which has become essentially a white nationalist organization, and assign their duties to other agencies (with necessary funding).
The greatly beefed up border security funding will allow an orderly border. The market should solve most of the rest of the problems. Immigrants are, by and large, great for America.
I don’t like plans like this. It puts up more barriers to entry, and that means at least some people would still be strongly motivated to bypass the legal immigration process. A seasonal agricultural worker would never want to lose such a large chunk of their pay every month.
If you allow them in, and give them some kind of registration card, they’ll be paying taxes anyways, at least via employer’s payroll taxes. And those taxes will probably be on hirer wages as well, since shady employers won’t be able to exploit them nearly as easily. That’s enough of a contribution for any other low-wage worker, why shouldn’t it be enough for them?