While the logistics of a system will have to be worked out, the basic premise is we allow a migrant worker visa entry. The migrant worker has lets say 90 days in the US, and means to support himself either with provable accessible funds or provable employment which will meet the qualifications. His pay is put into a account but he only can access a percentage of, maybe up to half, while in the US. Upon leaving within the 90 days with proof of gainful employment he can recover the rest of his pay, released at the boarder crossing, minus a tax (perhaps 10%) which goes to boarder enforcement. If a migrant can not prove work during his time in the US or overstays his 90 days any money he has in the account is forfeit and those funds can go to boarder enforcement or wall building/maintenance and the migrant will not be allowed back in the US on such a visa for a set period of time.
This way good Mexican workers can work legally in the US, the taxes withheld go to feed the US tax system with no benefit to the migrant (America First), then he will have to pay the additional tax to allow a system which allows him to do this (boarder crossing migrant worker tax). Any ‘bad’ Mexican workers, those who do not follow our rules, will lose any funds in the account and barred from coming back and any funds they have will go to make it hard for them to sneak back in (as they will be barred from official entry).
It would not be a illegal crossing, and they would not live in the shadows, they were be here on a migrant worker visa. They could/must enter through traditional ports of entry, no wall scaling equipment needed.
Yup, we all did. Your proposal would encourage illegal entry by adding onerous terms and complications to legal entry.
It’s not a viable plan. You’re just going to shift illegal immigration from overstays to undocumented crossings.
I’m not saying nobody would follow your rules – I’m sure some folks would tolerate it and a few might even welcome it. But, to many, having a hold put on half of their income would become an unbearable burden and an incentive to cross illegally. This would be worse when the first inevitable stories come of officials seizing funds either erroneously or due to minor discrepancies. Even if that didn’t become endemic (spoiler: it would), even a few stories would have a chilling effect.
@OP: The problem with your proposal is that it completely overlooks the mindset, circumstances and situation of the average illegal immigrant.
Quote: “The migrant worker has lets say 90 days in the US, and means to support himself either with provable accessible funds or provable employment which will meet the qualifications” - many illegal immigrants simply don’t match any of these three criteria. They don’t intend to just stay for ninety days - they want to stay for many years, maybe even life, in America. They have very little money, little provable employment. They just want to come and stay, and cannot or do not care a whit for these regulations.
You have to meet people where they are, not where you want them to be.
Why would this be? This would be a additional way to cross legally, not a restriction on other ways to cross legally or illegally (except for more funds to deter it). If they cross illegally and don’t like the terms, they can continue to do so. If they cross via another program then this does not apply unless they like this one better.
Yes, your proposal is that people coming to America looking for work can make two choices. They can come here legally, in which case they will have half their money held, be charged taxes, and then kicked back out in ninety days. Or they can come here illegally, in which case they can keep all their money and work here as long as they want.
Your system would incentivize people to come here illegally.