Actually, I favor open borders(except for criminals and the diseased).
What I do not favor is a policy that rewards lawbreakers at the expense of the law abiding, and worse, a policy that does not solve the problem at all, forcing us to do this whole process again in 20 years.
Here’s what we actually should do, since the American public and more importantly the labor movement will never accept open borders:
Expand immigration. A lot. We’ve proven that we can’t secure our borders enough to keep out millions who want to come here. So let’s let a lot more people come over here who want to come here. Exclusion should be focused on criminals, the diseased, and those who are unlikely to work(those would be weeded out later, not at the border). The caveat, since as Paul Krugman once said, you can’t have a liberal immigration policy and a generous social welfare state, would be that immigrants would be ineligible for most welfare programs until they built up a long enough work history. Say, five years.
Secure the border and improve internal enforcement based on the fact that now we have fewer people who aren’t allowed to be here. The President has already focused enforcement on those types of people and has been very successful at it. We can’t deport all the illegals, but we can deport all the criminals and bums. It’s especially easier to do this if they are living among a population that is working out in the open and presumably doesn’t want that type around anyway. Just start rounding up gang members and shipping them across the border.
Give legal status to the illegals who are already here. IF they have committed no crimes, and that includes committing fraud to get work, then they would be eligible for citizenship. If they have committed crimes they would be required to confess those crimes and pay fines commensurate with their crimes(I don’t know what the fine for document fraud is, but I assume it’s pretty damn high.) They would also have to pay all back taxes, with interest and penalties. If this is too much for them, then they can either just remain legal but never have the chance to become citizens, or, they can go home and get in the back of the line. If they went further than documentation fraud and actually committed identify theft, they should be prosecuted accordingly and deported, ineligible to ever return legally.
Patrol the Rio Grande using bionic sharks with laser cannons on their heads. I mean that’s a good idea regardless of whether you have open borders or not.
Perhaps it should. I’ve always thought that community service should be more of an active part of citizen life. It saves taxpayer money, creates ties to the community, and generally increases the quality of living withing a given community.
However, slapping a huge judgement against them from the start, in my opinion, would be unduly burdensome and likely keep them from advancing materially thus leading to increased dependance on the social safety net. You’d also likely increase the poverty levels of succeeding generations since they would likely have fewer of the starting benefits that financial stability generates. I wouldn’t be surprised to see many “self-deport” or just continue to live off the radar.
But the only penalty I suggested for failure to atone for their crimes was ineligibility for citizenship. They could still live and work here. Alternatively, they could leave the country and wait to be allowed to enter legally, thus starting over.
In this area, my suggestion is pretty close to what the Senate has already passed, minus the fines for fraud. Instead, they get a fine for being here illegally, plus they have to pay back taxes. The latter should be non-negotiable unless we change the nature of tax debt for all Americans. Having a special dispensation for illegals would cause the pitchforks to come out.
Sounds like some semi-reasonable legislation (except for the use of illegal as a noun) which is why it would be impossible to bring up to a vote in the house. If you support all this than you should be as upset as we are that the only thing the House Republicans can put out is a “get the hell out” bill which has no chance of going anywhere. Instead it seems you were praising them.
On one hand, the Democrats don’t actually favor an immigration policy as liberal as the one I suggested. Immigration would be expanded, but would still fall so far short of demand for Mexicans especially that we’d continue to have a major problem. In theory stepped up enforcement could meet that problem, but only if you believe that stepped up enforcement will actually take place. I do not. There are many existing things written into law that have not been implemented, such as the border wall(incomplete with no ETA on it ever being complete), and biometric entry/exit systems(never implemented despite being required by law).
Uh huh. And under the current law (passed in 1998 and expanded by the Patriot Act in 2001), when are biometric exit/entry systems mandated to be operational?
Various laws requiring exit control have sat on the books since 1996. In 2000, two separate laws were passed, one that established an exit system and one that tied it to the Visa Waiver Program. In 2001, the USA Patriot Act chimed in again, demanding exit. In 2002, the Border Security Enhancement law again required exit, and in 2004 the Intelligence Reform Act emanating from 9/11 Commission recommendations included a biometric exit. Beginning in 2004, and until 2007, pilot programs for exit were undertaken at the demand of Congress. The technology worked, but compliance rates were low since the kiosks were not clearly mandatory or placed in locations that required compliance.
So, why should anyone believe that this system will be built just because it’s AGAIN in the Senate bill?
The 2007 Visa Waiver Program for Certain Visitors. Section 217(h) of Immigration and Nationality Act was amended in 2007 to require air carriers to “collect and electronically transmit” passenger “arrival and departure” data to “the automated entry and exit control system” developed by the federal government. Deployment of an exit system was also tied to further expansion of the Visa Waiver Program. The exit requirement was ignored, however, by both the Bush and Obama administrations, which both actively expanded the Visa Waiver Program without a biometric exit program.
Like I said, there’s a lack of trust here. There has been a bipartisan reluctance to enforce immigration law as well as it could be enforced by Presidents.