In an earlier post, I proposed a new platform for whichever party wants to adopt it. Here's the Pro-Immigration plank:
Allow all of the legal immigrants US businesses need. Tempered by background checks, annual income minimums, and health insurance requirements, give work visas to pretty much any foreign national who can get an America-based company to hire them before they come to the US (they need to have a job waiting when they cross the border). Don't set maximum limits; let the market decide.
Things I'd like to add to this, but which may be a bridge too far:
1. Implement something like the DREAM Act; don't punish the kids of illegals.
2. Since the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants appear to be from Mexico, cut a deal with the Mexican government. We'll give illegals here legal status, but Mexico has to pass reciprocal laws that give US citizens in Mexico all the rights Mexican citizens in the US have, and make immigration to Mexico easier for Americans.
3. Make immigration violations permanently bar someone from getting a visa to enter the US.
The problem with immigration isn't free movement of people for economic purposes, but political friendship. There's no reason to believe (and many reasons not to, empirically) that someone coming from a foreign upbringing will be friendly to the values and traditions that underlie the American project.
ReplyDeleteSo it is fine to say, "Anyone can come if we need them to work," but it is less fine to say that they can stay and vote. If anything, the lack of common values among the citizenry has already reached a point at which it is a severe problem for governance.
The importance of political friendship is a universal claim (Aristotle makes it in the EN), so it holds for Mexico just as well. They have, as any nation has, good reason to be suspicious of free immigration.
Grim makes a very valid point.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with Points 2 and 3.
Re 2, there's no reason to believe there's a problem here. Since we're reforming our immigration policies, we need to let the new program stabilize the flows. We may not (I don't think we have now) enough of a flow of Americans going to Mexico in the context of this Point to warrant formal, blanket Federal government involvement.
Re 3, that requires 11M illegals currently in the US to go home and never return. This is impractical, at the least. Further, it's immoral at least to a degree: for the vast majority of these illegals, the only "crime" they've committed has been to enter illegally, and since then they've been fine, contributing members of their community. I prefer giving these folks the traffic ticket their illegal entry amounts to, given their empirical performance since arrival, and grant them the visa/work permit.
If these folks--or any immigrant--wants to become a citizen, it may be that we need to revisit our laws governing how folks can become citizens and/or the enforcement of those laws. That should be part of immigration reform as it applies to the current population of illegals.
And the third leg of this--border security. We don't have control over our immigration policy--even the less controlled, more generous one we're developing here--unless we have absolute control over our borders.
Finally, these three legs, while needing to be separate bills, need to be passed together, or the whole thing falls apart from failed complete implementation.
I do agree that there's no need for quotas on our visas, and I'd shorten the times allowed by the Feds to vet a visa application. I'd go so far as to staple a green card to the graduation diploma of any foreign STEM student.
Eric Hines
I'm afraid I'm one of those extremists who wants the borders secured first and foremost. Then we start really looking at just who is coming in, and for what. I'd like to see a version of the Bracero program return, and yes, I am willing to pay more for tomatoes and grapes. The children? If they've been raised in the 'States and are culturally American, DREAM Act but no other benefits - their families can't use them as a link to fast-track other relatives into the country. The little ones need to go back to their parents country of origin along with their parents - no more "anchor babies." I know this comes across as harsh, but I'm really tired of watching good people who come in and play by the rules getting steamrolled by illegal aliens and their supporters.
ReplyDeleteLittleRed1
If you look at the rules for applying for visas and citizenship, economic reasons are NOT valid. In other words, a legally valid reason for getting a visa and becoming a permanent resident with a chance to become a citizen does NOT include "I can't earn a living in my home country." For years the Executive branch has simply ignored this.
ReplyDeleteI have a couple of new rules I'd like to see implemented. As I understand the power of modern bureaucracy, they probably don't even need to be legislated.
ReplyDelete1) No bank granting an account of any kind - deposit, loan, credit, etc. - to an illegal alien can participate in any Federal program. No sale of Treasury bonds, no membership in the Federal Deposit Insurance program, etc., etc. Any alien who proffers anything other than a foreign-issued passport or an INS or State Department document that shows they are in the country legally will be presumed to be in the U.S. illegally. Matricula Consulars do not count as passports.
2) All employers must require presentation of proof of legal residence in the U.S. and must use eVerify to verify the employability status of any new hire. The CEO, President, CFO, COO and top HR person of any company that hires illegal aliens go to jail for at least a year.
3) All recipients of any public aid other than emergency care and support must prove legal residence.
Can't get a job. Can't borrow money. Can't get public aid. No need to deport them, they'll leave.
If you look at the rules for applying for visas and citizenship, economic reasons are NOT valid.
ReplyDeleteThis is correct, but not necessarily appropriate. There are lots of reasons for not being able to earn a living in the home country, and they don't necessarily result from an economic disability. If the applicant can show that the disability is cured by coming to the US--e.g., an actual job is waiting, per OP--then I'd be inclined to accept such an applicant, and to alter the law to make that legal to do.
Eric Hines
For people who were brought here under the age of, oh, 14:
ReplyDeleteIf they have a sponsor in the U.S. that can support them without using public aid to do so, they can have Resident Alien status. Then:
1) Complete mastery of the English language. They should be able to speak it as their first language.
2) Pass a Citizenship test by the time they are 16 or 18.
3) a) Serve in the military in such a fashion that they are eliglble for an honorable discharge after their first hitch is up (or immediately if wounded in combat), or
b) Serve as a policeman or a fireman for at least 4 years, or
c) Successfully complete an apprenticeship or similar program and be gainfully employed for at least 3 years, or
d) Hold down a job for at least 5 years without going on public aid (except unemployment, but time on unemployment doesn't count towards the 5 years). Time spent in college also does not count towards the 5 years.
I'd go so far as to staple a green card to the graduation diploma of any foreign STEM student.
ReplyDeleteBefore you do that, get a passing acquaintance with the works of Norm Matloff.
You could start here: http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/MichJLawReform.pdf
Matloff simply incinerates the "argument" that foreign STEM grads are necessary--at ALL--to US business, and that in fact, such grads are a leading cause of US citizen IT grads to be waste-material at the age of 35.
They also degrade the career and compensation of US native engineers (EE/ME/CE).
They also degrade the career and compensation of US native engineers
ReplyDeleteI'll study the article, certainly. But I also have no concerns about labor price competition, no more than I have about any other price competition.
Eric Hines
To start at the top, with Grim's concern, what about allowing all the workers we need, but only on a guest worker program?
ReplyDeleteOn the 'bridge too far' side, #2 is designed to make amnesty more palatable. Maybe it's a bad way to do that, but the government could say we're getting something for amnesty.
On 3, there could be a 1- to 3-year period where it wasn't enforced. Smart illegals would arrange to go home, get their current employers to re-hire them, and come back legally in that time.
Border enforcement is bizarre. I really don't understand what we're doing there. I agree it should be addressed, but I'm not sure what that would take.
Likewise, what would you folks suggest for changes to citizenship requirements?
To continue, I agree w/ LR1 that the DREAM Act should be for children who are culturally American & that there shouldn't be any other special benefits for them.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that we're being very unfair to those who follow the rules on immigration. I'm not sure how to address that.
I agree w/ RonF that employers and social services, etc., should be required to use eVerify.
I'll have to think about his suggestions for the DREAM Act requirements.
Of course, I also think we need to make the application process faster, streamlining systems and adding personnel or whatever is needed to do that.
ReplyDeleteA further thought on border security, the current problem is that most of the American people are adamantly against amnesty, and big business is never going to tolerate eliminating the flow of labor they want. My primary solution (forget 1, 2, & 3 for now) is aimed at solving this in the long term by ensuring businesses have the supply of labor they want. If they have that, I believe they'll be more amenable to security.
Now, that's backwards from what it should be and it will take a lot of time, but it's the only resolution I see.
annual income minimums, and health insurance requirements
ReplyDeleteDo we really need to have guns pointed at the head of employers to enforce this? Any time I can reduce gun-pointing-at-head things (laws/regs) I consider that a good thing.
Don't punish the kids of illegals If a child is a natural born citizen, they should be allowed to remain in the US. If they are not, then they should be deported with their parents. If a natural born citizen child has parents who are being deported, they should go with the parents until they are an adult, unless they have legal relatives who will care for them in the USA. The last bit sounds harsh, but children should be with their parents - splitting up families is bad for all involved.
Smart illegals would arrange to go home, get their current employers to re-hire them, and come back legally in that time.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that other nations' consulates and embassies are their soil, not American. With advanced planning, and a properly streamlined visa process, they could satisfy the requirement to leave the US (to the extent such a requirement is legitimate in the first place) by going to their consulate/embassy and getting the proper entry documents.
[W]hat would you folks suggest for changes to citizenship requirements?
I'm more inclined actually enforce existing requirements, first, and then see if any holes need addressing. Along with this, I'd tighten the standards themselves: what constitutes adequate understanding of English (and would we require an immigrating grandmother--eliding why she's immigrating--to be this proficient?), what constitutes an adequate understanding of American history, American civics?
I frankly don't understand how this can be assessed without a two- or three-hour written and oral exam for each subject conducted entirely in English (which, other than Grandmother, would constitute an adequate test of the applicant's English). This, of course, will take lots of qualified bodies for administering the tests.
Eric Hines
annual income minimums, and health insurance requirements
ReplyDeleteDo we really need to have guns pointed at the head of employers to enforce this?
Who said anything about employers? The individual would need to show he / she has a job paying X amount per year or more, and he would be required to show that he has health insurance. Employers would probably need to help with paperwork, but that's it.
Now, I would require employers to check w/ eVerify to make sure the immigrant is legal. That's important, I think.
...he would be required to show that he has health insurance.
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth for? Even in a properly free market, insurance is a bad bet. Especially then, since individuals would have more money in their own pockets (from less in government's pockets) with which to save for their own catastrophes.
Eric Hines
I've got to agree with Eric's health insurance comment.
ReplyDeleteMaking amnesty more palatable - If that is the goal of what we are trying to further with this plank, then I would disagree with this plank.
My former fantasy of land mines and barbed wire on the northern and southern borders isn't right either.
I'm having a hard time coming up with an immigration solution that balances privacy for citizens, relative ease of travel, a small scope of government regulation/involvement...
This is the blog that makes you think.
Is the end goal that we ensure that only people who are supposed to be in the USA are here, or is the goal to make sure that employers get the workers they need? I'm kind of getting the latter vibe from this plank as written.
First--businesses aren't jobs welfare programs--which no one here is suggesting. But neither are folks business survival welfare providers. There's no reason for government policy to be involved at all in making sure "that employers get the workers they need." Government's role is to regularize interstate commerce and to create/maintain the conditions necessary for a free market. Period (to coin a phrase for this context).
ReplyDelete...only people who are supposed to be in the USA are here....
This gets at a fundamental principle of having/allowing immigration at all. No nation has an inherent obligation to let any noncitizen inside its borders. No person has an inherent right to enter the territory of another nation. Permission must be granted, and that permission is not required to be granted.
My view is that immigration is a good thing, though, for a couple of reasons: it provides new blood with new ideas, new ways of approaching both existing and new problems. Second, for a nation facing a demographic...reduction...in our case, catastrophe in the cases of the PRC, Russia, Germany, and many others, it's a way of preserving, even continuing, population growth. Again, in our particular case, that last includes actual workers needed to keep funding (to the extent we ought at all) things like Social Security and Medicare.
So: who are supposed to be in the USA? I suggest first, and nearly only, those who can and will work for a living and those in an active training or educational program pursuant to working for a living.
We're also a safe haven for those trying to escape persecution of one sort or another. I'm of mixed minds on this, particularly regarding political persecution. If these are willing to...escape...rather than stay and work to correct, how can they be counted on to stay and work to correct here, when we fall into those straits? On the other hand, northern Korea comes to mind as a case of political failure and persecution problems being uncorrectable from within. We need to tighten our definitions of persecution from which we should take in escapees.
Once an immigrant is established in a job, then immediate family members should become eligible for entry, even though they might not fit the first criterion.
I'm also looking at clarifying the first clause of the 14th Amendment. I'm not convinced that simply being born within a national jurisdiction should confer citizenship. I'm not convinced that it should not, though.
As part of a political plank in the relatively near term, that last might also be a bridge too far.
Eric Hines
The purpose of this plank is to provide a reasonable solution to our current problem of illegal immigration and a large population of illegal immigrants.
ReplyDeleteThe basic plank (ignore 1, 2, &3) doesn't solve the current illegal immigrant problem, but that problem isn't solvable because the voters want one thing and businesses want another. Politicians are stuck between the cash and the votes.
Instead, it solves the problem in the future by making legal immigration easier and safer than illegal immigration and providing a way for businesses to get the labor they want. It satisfies both constituencies in the long run, though it satisfies business immediately and the anti-amnesty crowd over a generation as illegal workers are replaced by legal ones.
As for border security, it doesn't address it directly, but by removing the incentive to cross illegally it would be more effective than measures that do, especially if the government won't enforce direct measures, as is the case now.
I would include the DREAM Act because it is fair. I include making immigration violations a bar to ever getting a visa again as further incentive to play by the (now much easier) rules.
There are ways that this plank can be used by illegals currently here to become legal. So what?
In fact, let me ask this: As specifically as possible, in your view, what is the problem?
There are people in the US that are not here legally.
ReplyDeleteThere are people in the US that are not here legally.
ReplyDeleteAnd nothing in the plank for dealing with them, other than the Congressman Grayson (D, FL) solution.
Also: without border security and an easier and faster visa process and legal border-crossing possibilities, no way to mitigate that problem.
And deporting and barring from ever returning those who've been contributing members of their community and whose only transgression has been getting here illegally is overkill.
Eric Hines