Okay, we’ve been hearing as part of the immigration debate that nothing can be done about the 11 or 12 million illegals that are already here. That as a practical matter, no one is going to round them all up (whether we make them felons or not) and send them back. Let’s say that is 100% true.
**The question I’d like to explore in THIS thread is IF we decided that we wanted these illegals to leave, what would be the best way to do it. **There are currently a couple of live threads exploriing what to do about immigration This is NOT about that. This is an attempt to harness the brainpower of SDMB and explore the most effective methods of freeing ourselves of the illegals already here.
Again, the question assumes we have decided that it is something we want to do.
I’ll start off:
Increase and enforce sanctions against those employers who hire illegals.
Secure the borders — through the construction of a wall, a virtual wall , more agents, etc.
Construct a way that illegals can register with the government, without reprisal, for 6 months. Also change immigration laws, making it easier and faster for people to come here legally.
Create an efficient guest worker program that will match a U.S. employer with a foreign worker.
At six months and one day start allowing these people that have registered (#3) to apply for entry (work permits). This will be done in Mexico or at a station on the border. The first people who sign up will be the first ones who get the permits. Theoretically they could be back in the U.S. the next day. Those further back in the line will have to wait until the next slot opens up.
At six months and one day all illegals still here who have not registered (#3), become felons.
Pass a federal law that abolishes cities as safe havens, meaning cities in which law enforcement personnel cannot ask of a person’s legal status. Pass a law that makes it a criminal act that results in immediate arrest and incarceration and loss of office for any city or state official that attempts to flout the federal law.
At six months and one day, begin to arrest and immediately deport all illegals (felons). This needn’t be a “sweep”, just as they are discovered. Upon arrest, confiscate all money and seize all bank accounts. Apply proceeds to the cost of the overall program.
At six months and one day, close all schools to illegals.
At six months and one day, bill each government for all emergency services provided to illegals from that country. Also, track the services to the person reciveing the care. Before they are ever let back into the country, the medical bill has to be paid either by the person or their government.
Feel free to change and alter this or offer up somehting completely different.
But to reiterate, this is not a thread to discuss the merits of immigration, illegals, or the work ethic of foreign workers. There are other live threads for that.
This question ASSUMES WE’VE ALREADY DECIDED THAT WE WANT TO FIND A WAY TO HAVE ALL ILLEGALS LEAVE AND START FROM GROUND ZERO.
I am pretty sure that this is illegal under U.S. Law. Local places can say themselvesIndictment, arrest, or conviction means you have to go. But for non-federal Offices, I am pretty sure Congress can’t pass a Law saying noncompliance with this law means the Mayor of Cambridge or the Governor of Mississippi automatically loses his/her Office.
The “stick” the feds use with states and localities is money. As in: *you won’t receive federal money * (for Infant Formula or Medicaid or Federal Aid for your State Universities or for Roads etc.)if *you don’t comply * and I don’t see that in this list.
Overall having 1 vague point on employers and everything else facused on the illegals is, I believe , the biggest flaw in this plan - it is how the Republicans in Congress are portraying and has the true problem bassackwards. I suggest that if point 8:arresting the guilty and seizing property and bank accounts were aimed at Employers who hire illegals, and not at the illegal themselves, none of the rest of the points would be really necessary. It would be amazing how quickly the problem just went away.
You can start from ground zero without a massive deportation. There is no consensus by economists that the illegal immigrant community is net negative. And you have some good ideas up to number.
Why not enforce the current sanctions?
We certainly need that.
Don’t have it done at the border. It’s impractical.
Drop the first time felon stuff. Deport them. They cross again, then make it felony. Don’t make relatives and friends felons unless they are some sort of organized trafficking outfit.
If through normal process of policing, they discover that someone is an illegal alien, then call INS. Which currently happens a lot in TX. There shouldn’t be a racial profiling movement started by the local police seeking these people out.
Don’t make the government a thief that takes away from those that most need it.
I don’t think that is even Constitutional.
Sure.
You got some good ideas, but an extreme mean spiritedness clouds some of them. You can take a pound of flesh from someone without taking it from their heart.
The problem is that if a cities gives safe haven to illegals, there is no way new policies and laws can be effective. Maybe a lawyer can chime in here, but isn’t/couldn’t there be a way to construe a mayor’s actions from breaking federal law, which supercedes local law? Can’t they be arrested?
Also, didn’t this almost happen to a mayor ina small town in upstate NY, who started conducting gay marriages. Although it was the state of NY that was objecting to his actions.
I pretty much agree. We can make #1, which I made #1 for a reason, as strong as we need to. I would start with a serious, painful fine, followed immediately by jail time and even more painful fines.
I disagree with your last point. I don’t think that even if the jobs dried up that ALL illlegals would leave, which is why I have the other steps.
I don’t care whether or not the OP doesn’t want to speak about it; given that his proposals seems to assume that illegal immigration is some sort of massive, dire threat to US society that requires defining as felons a significant percentage of its population, if I want to discuss the merits of immigration in the context of these proposals, I will.
Firstly, I do not personally consider this anywhere near the threat that the OP does. Given that, Points 1) through 5) at least seem reasonably sensible. To accept any of the others, someone is going to have to show me that a significant chunk of my income or taxes is somehow going to support illegal immigrants without my permission. I have yet to see figure, in percent or dollars, of that type.
Specific comments:
Point 6) is over the top and unnecessary. I find the idea of defining people as felons for wanting to improve their lives, without any evident criminality other than being in the country illegally, to be morally repugnant. There is already a mechanism in place to deal with those who are both in the country illegally and who commit other crimes under existing statutes.
is ridiculous. City governments are supposed to round up millions of illegals, presumably hold them in concentration camps prior to their deportation (since there clearly would not be enough jail space for them), and pay for all this from city budgets or their city officals face jail time themselves? Absurd.
just seems like meanness and piling on, as most illegals (AFAIK) are in lower income strata and probably not many have bank accounts. How, for example, does one have a bank account without a Social Security number? Anyway, are you saying that any and all wages paid to illegal immigrants are ill-gotten gains and subject to seizure?
IMO, penalizes minors who by definition who have no say in where their parents locate them and are not fully responsible for their lives. Rejected.
Sure, go ahead and try. By what means will the US compel any of these countries to pay?
Frankly, I think the majority of the OP’s objectives can be achieved by increased tightening of the borders, guest worker programs and more vigorous prosecution of employers who knowingly use illegals. As I do not feel the problem of illegal immigration is anywhere near as serious as the OP does, I don’t feel any great need for the more draconian steps proposed.
Great. Let’s start there. But let’s beef them up, as well.
In their country of origin, then. The point is that to get the benefit they need to physically leave the country.
Yeah, the latter part of that is a problem. Maybe there is a way to not classify the help they receive as a felony. Illegal, bu not a felony. The law should discourage helping someone else break the law.
If INS would act immediately and arrest and deport them, that wold be great. The racial profiling objection needs to be honed. Is iot racial profiling to ask all men standiong outside of Home Depot for documantation? How about a group that is speaking Spanish? But this is grist for anopther thread, let’s not get hung up on it here.
We would only take it away if they continued to flout our laws. They can leave within a certain timeframe and keep everything. Afterwards, it’s ours. I agree that this is severe, but that is exactly why I think it would be effective. If I busted my ass working the jobs they do and saved a few thousand dollars, there’s no way I’d put that at risk.
I don’t know either. If it is not: new ammendment.
I know you think some of this is mean-spirited. (I don’t.) But that is all the more reason I appreciate your serious input.
Being here illegally is a crime. How we classify it is up to us. As long as we give notice of the law change and give people a reasonable amount of time to remove themselves and thus not become felons seems reasonable to me. No doubt, YMV.
No one said anything about rounding them up. In fact, in the OP I said there would not be a sweep. But particualr cities shouldn’t be safe harbors either. Plus, I think the total plan would do away with the need for any sweeps. I crafted it the way I did for that very reason, to avoid sweeps and to encourage illegals to leave of their own accord. Wouldn’t you agree that the pan would do that?
No, I’m saying that if you are here illegally and have not taken it upon yourself to leave by a certain date that you become a felon. The penalty is immedeiate deportation and a fine. The fine is whatever you have. This probably is too severe. (Oakland has a similar law for johns seeking prostitutes—they seize the vehicle, regasrdless of the value), let’s say a flat fine of $2,000. And that has to be paid before they can ever be considered for legal entry.
Thanks. You too, Unregistered Bull. This is definitely an improvement.
I’ll have to say too bad on this one. We give notice that your children will not be able to attend school startiing on Date X. If the parents do not take it upon themselves to take the kid out and bring them back to their home country, it’s on the parents, not us. Don’t mean to be callous, but it places the resposibility where it lies and I think, would be very effective in achieviing the goal.
No aid, if we give them any. And no more immigration until the bill is paid.
How about if we started with what you suggest and it is not as effective as we hoped. Would you sign on then?
Enforce existing law (Federal crime to hire illegal aliens) a few hard sonvictions (like US congressmen hiring illegal nannies) will help people get the message
no welfare benefits for illegal aliens
enforce existing laws
increase allotments for legal immigration (excluding people from muslim countries)
Forced mass migration rarely works out well (check out the Partition of India for a worst-case scenario) and are rarely instituted by the good guys. While we may relish the symbolic value of making everyone lug themselves, their families and their things back to Mexico, it doesn’t actually do anyone any good. The families involved will take a huge financial hit, Mexico and America will probably both have to set up some kind of refugee camps, and we won’t solve any of the underlying problems. While it’s less exciting to talk about, an amnesty program of some sort combined with stepped up border controls makes a lot more practical sense.
I think the OP is assuming we’re going to engage in a symbolic, feel-good action that’s completely impractical. As far as that goes, can we start by kicking out the children of illegal immigrants? What about the grandchildren, and so forth? I say that as long as we allow Texans to remain in Texas, given their illegal immigration into that portion of Mexico, we’re just granting ridiculous sanction to illegals.
For that matter, I understand that the government of Appalachia was pretty pissed when the Scotch/Irish moved in here. I’ll be packing my bags.
La Raza’s proposals are every bit as ridiculous and impractical as the OP’s, mind you–but not more so.
This particular proposal is especially alarming. As we’re trying to purify our land of these unwanted outsiders, we’ll apparently store them somewhere until a solution appears. Many governments will (rightly so, IMO) refuse to pay the US’s extortive medical fees, and so the undesirables will remain in limbo indefinitely. What should we call these camps where they remain, magellan?
Wait–I think I misread. By “the country,” you mean “The US,” not the country to which they’rebeing deported–is that right? If so, I withdraw my previous post and apologize for its insinuations. I still don’t like it, but it’s not as alarming as I initially thought.
How is a program that would remove 11 million people from our country merely “symbolic”?
I’m glad you brought this up. First, no more becoming a citizen just because you were born here. Change to born here and having parents that were here legally at the time.
Next, if you are an illegal and your child is legal, you have the choice of 1) taking him with you (Elian, anyone), arranging to leave him with relatives or others you deem safe, or as a last resort, by not doing either, 3) allowing him to become a ward of the state.
And American-Sicilians can sue the Moors for invading them. What possible relevance does this have to the OP, other than a pathetic appeal to emotion?
But they were there LEGALLY. But let me know if you need help packing.
:smack: And I took this post as serious. But thanks for playing.
No, because as I stated previously, I simply do not consider the number of illegals in this country to a problem sever enough to be worthy of your suggested solutions.
That would also eliminate voting fraud, and the need for voting registration at all (every time your address is changed, and you notify whichever agency issues this National ID Card, an e-mail would be sent to your county super of elections and your voting registration would automatically be updated – provided you are a citizen and otherwise eligible to vote). So, yeah, I could get behind that.
You ned a Constitutional Amendment to change the 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons **born ** or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Maybe you realize this – just saying.
The answer to both is absolutely, you can certainly arrest and prosecute local officials under federal law. The answer to my point regarding your OP however, is it possible for Congress to pass a Law that says if you break this law you automatically can’t be be a Local or State (non federal) Office holder is, I’m pretty sure, absolutely not.
As I said from the start the State/Local folks can make laws that say you are out of Office if you commit a crime.