Step 1 (underpants!), you near-eliminate the problem of replacements by securing our borders (Personally I’m a fan of reassigning the DEA to border patrol and deportation, but that’s another debate :P)
Step 2 (?), you crack down on employers who employ illegals. You don’t do it all at once - you take what you have hte manpower to persue.
Step 3 (Profit!) Continue improving the process, making it more efficient - quickly repsonding to complaints, deporting illegals, etc. Eventually the problem will deminish rapidly because there are less coming in, more going out etc etc.
This is a demand driven problem, and you can’t address it as a supply driven problem. It’s just like keeping drugs out of the country. The more successful you are, they higher the price for the durgs/people and more lucrative it is to smuggle them in (and create false documents so they can stay). Seal the border, and they’ll dig tunnels. Close up the tunnels, and they’ll use boats and enter along the coast, or airplanes flown into remote locations. Increase the border patrol, and that’s just more people who can be bribed.
We’ve been trying to eliminate drugs coming into th eUS for how many years now, and how successful has that been? Same thing here.
But think about the math for a sec. Hell, the entire US Greyhound bus fleet has only about 2500 buses in it. If the average bus can carry 50 people, that’s 125,000 people that can fit into the entire Greyhound bus fleet, or a whopping 1.14% of the 11-million-strong population of illegal immigrants.
So a transit fleet on the order of nearly a quarter of a million Greyhound buses would be required to safely load and transport a full cargo of passengers for hundreds or thousands of miles in order to deport all illegal immigrants. No, the logistical problems here aren’t on the scale of moving the entire human population to the moon, but in everyday practical terms they’re still immense.
How would you realistically organize and carry out such a plan on any timescale shorter than, say, a decade or so? Where would you get the vehicles? How would you coordinate the journeys? What would you do for security, to ensure that busloads (or whatever-loads) of desperate immigrants didn’t just hijack the buses?
The scale of this problem is not something that can be managed just by mustering up a little more “can-do” attitude. AFAICT, this is something that would require concerted efforts on the order of, say, mobilizing troops to repel a medium-scale naval assault by China on the Pacific Northwest. Would the gains from such a policy really be great enough to make this kind of investment worth it?
Or if you’re willing to extend the timeframe of your deportation project over several decades in order to ease the logistical pressures, you’re essentially settling for a policy of slow, non-systematic, opportunistic deportations that are disorganized and comparatively easy to evade. Which is more or less what we’ve already got. Hey, mission accomplished!
I sympathize with the people who feel that it’s unjust and a flouting of the law to refrain from deporting illegal immigrants, but we do have to be realistic. We’re talking about shipping out nearly four percent of the entire US population here: that’s almost one out of every twenty-seven people. I just cannot imagine any remotely practicable way in which that could be done, even if we wanted to do it.
Pardon my hijack, but I’ve been wondering if there are opportunities here to address the demand side with systems of consumer certification similar to those that have emerged in, e.g., the environmental and anti-sweatshop movements. There are organizations that certify the practices of commercial producers, so you can buy Certified Organic butter or Certified Sustainably Harvested lumber or Certified Sweatshop-Free clothing. And there are organizations that scrutinize the certifying organizations and offer opinions as to what their labels are worth. It’s a patchy and imperfect system, but it does offer ways for consumers to influence business policy through their market choices.
So why aren’t there watchdog organizations that will scrutinize producers to see if they qualify for, let’s call it the “Made in USA with Guaranteed Legal Labor” designation? Then consumers who care about this issue could buy only products and services from certified businesses, and that would provide an incentive for businesses to make their employment practices conform to the requirements for certification. Is somebody already doing this, and if not, why not?
The thing is, though, the majority of the people in the US actually want something like the Bush proposal (by a 2-1 majority). So, of that minority, you’d still only have a fraction that would be actually be willing to pay more. If it’s 50%, your still only talking about a relatively small minority.
And I’m not sure a private group would have access to the immigration status of private citizens.
I’ve never heard of it being done. Interesting question, though.
I’m still on the fence, although I’m leaning in that direction. When Bush first proposed this several years ago, I had a strong negative reaction. I even opened a GD thread to argue against it. Since then, I’ve thought about it a lot more, and it’s starting to make more sense. I’d still prefer the ideal solution of not having so many illegal aliens here, but we’re beyond that point and that just isn’t an option any more.
Well, yeah. I mean, if everyone in the country committed felony tax fraud, how are you going to arrest everyone? Who’d do the arresting? Who’d run the prisons? Who’d build the prisons, since there certainly aren’t enough to hold us all. At a certain point, if so many people are violating a law, you have to ask if that law is serving a valid purpose, and if the results of enforcing the law are really more desirable than the results of letting people flaunt it.
I think you’d have to ask those people waiting with great frustration in other countries? Let’s say the fine is $2,000 (it could be any amount). Do those people think it is fair? I’d venture to guess that they’re reaction would be,
Legal Immigrant In Waiting: WHAT! $2,000? Great, here’s my $2,000, I’ll be ready top go tomorrow."
You: “No, I’m sorry, Sir, but you don’t have that option.”
LIIW: What do you mean? You just said that those people can stay if they pay $2,000.
You: Yeah, because they’re already there.
LIIW: But they snuck in. I’ve been waiting here for (?) years, playing by the rules, waiting to be able to go live in America.
You: Yeah, but it’s kinda complicated. You see there already there–
LIIW: BUT THEY SNUCK IN. I’VE BEEN TRYING TO DO IT THE LEGAL WAY. HOW CAN THEY BE LOIVIING THERE WHILE I STILL HAVE TO WAIT?!!! THAT"S NOT FAIR.
I guess it would go something like that. And then they would pack up and sneak in tomorrow.
Not only is a result of massively increased deportations a welcome change, the more of them the more welcome. If your point of contention is one of practicality, fine, let’s deal with it. Why does everyone say “Oh it would be so hard” and then just throw up their hands? This just baffles me, particulalry on a board with so many extremely bright people. That includes you, John. You think things through extremely well. Why, then, do you just throw up your hands? Seriously. Can you think of no ways—no ways at all—that the very real practical hurdles can be overcome? Or is it that you don’t want the hurdles to be overcome. I ask this with no snarkiness intended. But it seems that if the real problem is logistical, that can probably be solved.
Here, I’ll take a stab at it. The goal is to rid the country of the illegals that are here. There are two ways to do this. One is we arrest them and phsically deport them. The other way is to change their experience here so they leave on their own. The second idea is preferable, so I shoot for that. And leave the first idea to be employed later when there are fewer people to deal with. My plan:
Staff up. Hire thousands of immigration and law enforcement officials.
Start securing the border today. We have to do this so more people don’t sneak in (or sneak in again).
Clamp down on employers that hire illegals. Come down hard and heavy. I’m talking painful fines and serious jailtime were warranted. Make an example of some companies so the others know you’re not playing. Immediately deport those illegals at those companies.
Revise and streamline processes for people to come here legally. Have it in place ready to be enacted at the proper time.
Devise a plan that includes both the carrot and the stick. Announce (for instance) that any illegal alien that registers will be first in line (behind those already there) for legal entry. All they have to do is register and leave the country. If they register and do not leave the country within 30 days, they are deemed a felon and their name is stricken from the list for ten years. If caught, they will immeditaley be jailed and deported. They have until 11/1/06 to register. If they do not register, on 11/2/06 they will become felons. If they are then found here, they will be arrested, deported, fined $2,000, and they will be prevented from applying for legal entry for 12 years. If they do not pay the $2,000 fine, they are prevented from applying for 15 years.
On 12/1/06, start letting those who have been waiting in line patiently in to fill the slots be all the people leaving. The quicker people leave (whether through their own volition or with our help) the quicker the line moves.
Enact a law that prevents municipalities from declariing their cities safe harbors. Any elected official who works or speaks to subvert this law is fined $10,000 per day or infraction. Maybe they’re jsut removed from office instead. Yeah, I lke that better.
On 12/1/06, require proff of legal residency for any student of any age. If they do not have it, they are not allowed in. Of course, no illegals would be allowed to attend our universities, never mind in-state tuition.
Add an amendment to the Constitution clarifying the 14th in a way that puts an end to the idea of anchor babies. Possibly even make it retroactive 5 years. (Since the individuals it would effect played no part in the decision to be born here, they are not losing anything.)
Make English the official language of the United States. It’s asinine that this hasn’t been done already.
Anyway, this is obviously cobbled together quickly. I’m sure it needs and can benefit from improvement. Myabe thrown out altogether and replaced by something better. But that something better needs to secure our borders and reward the people who have been seeking entry to the U.S. legally, not those who snuck in or overstayed their visas.
So, John, is there something you can work with there? You say you’d prefer a plan that results in fewer illegals remaining here. Do you, perhaps have a better plan? Or are you content just throwing your hands up declaring “it’s too hard, too impractical”?
We figured the logistics of D-Day and puttiing a man on the moon, my bet is that we can figure this out, too.
Then add in other municipal buses, Amtrak trains, and some of those lovely 747’s your native land is famed for.
Why the rush? So it takes a decade. I don’t think it would, but what’s wrong with that? The problem didn’t happen overnight and it won’t be solved overnight. But to keep talking about amensty (no matter how the president tries to dress it up) is the worst possible approach. Not only do you not address the problem, you encourage others to break the law. You are effectively saying “want the fast track to citizenship? Forget that lame immigration lottery or trying to get hired by a company or coming in on a student visa. Just sneak in and stay hidden until they decide you’re okay to stay. Eventually, they’ll just let it slide.” If you are a nation of laws and equality, this is the biggest affront to it I can imagine.
Well, several of your fellow Americans are fully behind the concept of eliminating terrorism. I’m not sure how that can be done either, but this is literally a walk in the park in comparison.
Ah, now we get to the real underlying cause. Is it “worth it?” If you ask me, yes. If you ask the greedy opportunists who are keeping wages low for Americans and exploiting desperate people, probably not.
It’s not just deporting them. It’s drying up the reasons they are here. You have to deport them, that goes without saying. But what you need to criminalize are the agro-corporations and home builders who are making a killing off these people at the expense of Americans and America’s security.
What I think is unrealistic isn’t the concept of deporting 11 million people. It can be done and it can be done quite efficiently if Americans truly wanted to do it. What’s unrealistic is the belief that some Americans (unfortunately those with lots of money and thereby extension, lots of political connections) will ever allow it.
I can’t believe I’m fully in agreement with magellon01.
As long as they think they will live better here than somewhere else (true or not), they’ll keep coming. If you face hunger or poverty or civil war in your own home country, the US looks pretty inviting. Besides, we have a BIG border. It’s impossible to completely lock down every inch of it.
Revoke the “Anchor Baby” doctrine: only babies born to one or more legally native or naturalised citizens is a citizen at birth.
Revoke the archaic Cuba/Land on the Beach doctrine. The Cold War is over, dammit, and the doctrine rightly winds up the non-Cubans, and gives the Cubans a false sense of aggrandizement and entitlement.
Invoke the following modified Reciprocity Doctrine: The US will be no more lenient with a foreign government regarding immigration policy than the foreign government is with its’ own immigration policy.
Invoke a Penalty Box Non-citizen Doctrine: if you’re here illegally, maybe we won’t/can’t ship you back, but until such time that you do go back, you are effectively premanently off-track vis-a-vis naturalization: and that includes the family that you bring with you, and any and all offspring that you produce while you’re here (including those made with legal US citizens).
Invoke a severe tax/confiscatory policy towards money shipped/wired by illegals . Call it a forced tax or whatever. You are here illegally, you work here illegally, you’re money stays here. If you don’t like it, go home.
What is the incentive to stop someone from entering the country illegally and then getting in the back of the line? Paying the fine and waiting it out from within the country?
Personally, I think the problem of what to do with existing illegals is easier and less important than deciding how to manage future entries. It is not clear to me if the US (government and people) have decided that they want to stop illegal immigration and pay the associated costs. If we do, then we should spend more time building a plan to transition the economy and immigration policy. I’d be happy to pay more for a burger or a head of lettuce, but I suspect the economic impact runs much deeper than that. Unfortunately, I don’t have any insight to that impact. I wish the immigration debate dealt more with that impact than with trying to “get justice” or “do what is fair”.
Are you asking rhetorically or do you really think it is possible to move 11 million people out of the country – even over 10 years? Transportation is a good example of the cost and effort, but there are lots of other issues and costs involved. If you moved 3000 people a day, it would take over 10 years to move 11 million people.
Consider the following costs and efforts. First, identifing the appropriate people; many illegals are not visible in computer databases. Second, sending out a large enough team to capture them, while maintaining the safety of both the team and suspects. Third, processing the suspects; I imagine this would have about the same overhead as an arrest and would cost several hours of time. Fourth, ensuring that legals are not accidentally sent back. Fifth, maintaining safe and secure holding until the illegals are deported. Sixth, transporting with a large enough security force to guarantee the safety of everyone. Seventh, managing the physical possessions (both the ones they can take back home as well as the ones they leave behind). Eighth, managing the outstanding financial commitments that illegals would not be able to meet once deported (e.g. unpaid bills and loans). Nineth, how would you manage outstanding legal obligations or crimes? What do you do with the illegals in prision.
Don’t forget the the steep tax/reverse tariff/penalty thingy on the money transferred out by those who cannot document their legal-to-work/legal-to-live US status, to finance the costs associated with the ilegals, and with securing the borders.
Immigration is a fact of life. It probably wiill and should increase (legally). An official language would enable us to make the adoption of the language a little more likely a little sooner. For the purposes of this discussion, though, we can ignore it, as it is quite tangential to this discussion.
Don’t think of it as being in agreement with me. Think of it as holding a perfectly rational, well-thought out, fair-minded position.
I can’t sign on for this one. Any country should be able to set their own immigration policy as they see fit to best address their particular circumstances. I don’t care if Country X has an open door policy regarding Americans, that does not mean that we should have a reciprocal policy. And that’s where your idea leads.
I like the others though, particulalry the one regrading Cuba. Completely unfair.
I agree. If I were a poor peasant in Mexico, I’d probably sneak across the border, too.
Magellan/Nietzsche: Your proposals assume that Americans are willing to spend large amounts of money deporting illegal aliens. That’s the whole point. Arresting and transporting any number of people form point A to point B is, of course, technically possible. But only if the society is willing to pay for it. The fact is, we’re not.
How are you going to appropriate funds to accomplish your goal when the people are against you 2-to-1?
By letting them know that we’re going to be intelligent about it and get people to leave on their own (as I showed how we might facilitate, above). I found these nuggets interesting, from here:
When told: “I’m going to read a list of possible concerns some people have expressed over illegal immigration. For each one, please tell me if you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned or not at all concerned about it. . . .”
“Overburden government programs and services”
Concerned: 87%
Unconcerned: 11
Not Sure: 2
“Lead to an increase in crime”
Concerned: 75
Unconcerned: 24
Not Sure: 1
“Lead to an increase in terrorism”
Concerned: 66
Unconcerned: 32
Not Sure: 1
“Take jobs away from U.S. citizens”
Concerned: 66
Unconcerned: 34
Not Sure: 1
“Change the culture of the country”
Concerned: 54
Unconcerned: 44
Not Sure: 2
When asked: “Overall, do you think illegal immigrants provide more benefits to the nation by doing work many U.S. citizens don’t want to do, or do they cost the country more because they don’t pay taxes and use public services like schools and emergency rooms?”
Provide Benefits: 22
Cost More: 65
Unsure: 13
“Increasing the number of federal agents patrolling the border to stop illegal immigration”
Favor: 80, Oppose: 15
“Trying to send as many illegal immigrants back to their home countries as possible”
Favor: 57, Oppose: 31
This one leads me to think that 12% of the respondents are simply hard-core pro-open borders, anything goes types:
“Do you think it is fair or unfair to grant rights to illegal immigrants while thousands of people wait each year to come to the United States legally?”
Fair: 12, Oppose: 81
Anyway, the main point of this post is that if we start seriously enforcing our laws and deporting people and doing some of the other things I mentioned, that attrition will do much of our work for us, at zero cost.
Here is a good article that covers the issue and related ones.
