re: "Discretion, Not Amnesty"

Andrew C. McCarthy at The Corner (" The one and only. ") had evaluated former-Speaker Gingrich's approach to immigration enforcement reform.

Money quote(s):

"A successful immigration enforcement policy, easily implemented under current law, would secure the borders; use the capability we have to track aliens who enter on visas to ensure that they don’t overstay; and target our finite law enforcement resources at (a) illegal immigrants who violate federal or state criminal laws (i.e., other than the laws against illegal entry), and (b) employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and therefore provide the incentive that induces them to come. (An even better policy would deny illegal immigrants various social welfare benefits, but some of that would involve changes in the law so I put it to the side for present purposes.)

Such a policy would materially reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. — if they can’t work, many will leave and many won’t come in the first place. Such a policy would also call on government lawyers to exercise discretion (as they do in all aspects of law-enforcement) to decide which cases are worth prosecuting. Obviously, if an alien has been here illegally for a number of years but has been essentially law-abiding (again, ignoring the fact that it is illegal for him to reside and work in the U.S.), and if his deportation would have the effect of ripping apart an intact, law-abding family, you don’t bring that case. Such a case is not worth the Justice Department’s time when there are plenty of more serious criminals, including more serious immigration offenders, to pursue." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Unfortunately, although DHS was tasked with implementing a means of tracking entry and exit by visa-holding temporary visitors, it's never been fully implemented at every port/point of entry/exit. It's just too hard, apparently, even with a decade's worth of funding and effort.

What they did put together, U.S. Visit, isn't bad and has proven a very useful tool in visa work, but it's just not comprehensive enough to reliably tell us whether any one visitor is (or is not) still in the country past his or her supposed departure date.

(I suppose it sets up a form of Schroediger's Alien.)

"The Obama administration currently exercises its discretion by not only refraining from any meaningful enforcement of the immigration laws but also preventing states (e.g., Arizona) from enforcing the laws." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

&

"Newt was quick to point out last night that he was talking about a humane enforcement policy. He was not proposing that the illegal aliens who were not prosecuted be given citizenship. They just wouldn’t get prosecuted as long as they didn’t make a nuisance of themselves."

This approach tackles the problem from the two critical directions, that of "push" and "pull."

Diminish the "pull" by cracking down on employers of illegal aliens and cutting social benefits that make America such a lucrative proposition, as well as providing the safety net that allows illegal workers to send millions and millions of dollars out of the country in remittances.

And at the same time, increase the "push" by enforcing deportation and other penalties on those illegal aliens who commit criminal offenses above and beyond their immigration violations.

11/23

re: "'Back door amnesty' a cynical political ploy by Obama"

Rick Moran at American Thinker (" a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans ") criticized the "back door amnesty" of letting illegal immigrants receive waivers of their visa ineligibilities while illegally in the U.S.

Money quote(s):

"This destroys the entire purpose of the hardship waiver. It was meant to prevent penalizing legal immigrants and US citizens who had married an illegal and whose deportation would impoverish the family. By rewarding illegal immigration, the administration will only encourage more of it."

1/7

re: "What the Immigration Debate Needs Is -- More Discrimination"

Dafydd at Big Lizards ("Please enjoy the blog while you wait with breathless breath and baited hook for the rest of this fershlugginer web site.") had a reasonable enough suggestion.

Money quote(s):

"I mean that quite literally: We need to discriminate between different classes of illegal alien.

Patterico has for some time pushed -- desultorily, to be sure -- a welcome policy suggestion; he calls on the feds to "deport the criminals first."

No, he's not saying that, since all illegal aliens are by definition "criminal," we should deport them all immediately; by contrast, Patterico says that there already is a subgroup, within the larger group of illegal aliens, comprising those illegals who commit crimes apart from the crime of being here illegally (and its associated crimes of document fraud and such)... and that we should focus first on deporting those who come to this country in order to live a criminal livestyle.." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

This idea has much to commend it; such as The Principle of Low-Hanging Fruit.

Which is to say that criminals, being that class of people prone to commit criminal acts, are more prone (than the merely law-abiding) to come to the attention of law enforcement, whereupon their illegal alien status can come to light and be addressed by our immigration enforcement apparatus.

(So midnight raids and the sorts of police-state actions that alarm the citizenry are unnecessary to implement this kind of program.)

"It makes a lot of sense, and it's a perfect example of discrimination: Patterico discriminates between illegals who want to try to fit into and contribute to American society, and illegals who see America as a vast piggy bank to be looted, abused, and despoiled." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

This also serves as an exemplar of both The Principle of Low-Hanging Fruit and The Principle of Self-Defense, plus The Principle of Practicality. While more-or-less law-abiding (leaving aside their immigration violations) illegal immigrants aren't to be encouraged, it's just good sense to prioritize or, as Dafydd says, discriminate between the two classes of illegal aliens.

"I hereby initiate my own program that I believe complements Patterico's pontification noted above. He says, "deport the criminals first;" I say, legalize the most innocent first.

Who are the most innocent of all illegal aliens? Those who were brought here as little children, too young even to understand what a national border is or what it means to cross without permission, let alone mature enough to consent in an informed way to illegal entry. Such innocents need a name, so let us call them "unwitting aliens," UA -- they illegally entered the U.S. without their own consent or even knowledge.

(Do you want to call it amnesty? I don't mind; I don't even care. Does anybody deserve amnesty more than a person who never even committed the crime of which he stands convicted, since he was a little kid when it happened?)

There are a great many such UAs, in raw numbers; and for nearly all of them, the United States is literally the only country they have ever known. They grew up here, went to school here, made friends and enemies here; they are completely assimilated into American society; they think of themselves as Americans; they have no recollection of having lived in Mexico or Argentina or El Salvador; and likely in quite a lot of cases, they don't even speak Spanish or Portuguese. Their parents may have falsely told them all their lives that they were born in the United States; they may even have shown the UAs a false American birth certificate.

Should we really tell these kids that they don't deserve in-state tuition, even if they have lived in one American state all their conscious life, because they're criminals? Do we want these young men and women to be forever barred from living legally in the only home they remember, the only country to which they feel loyalty, unable to establish residency anywhere in that country because of something their parents did when the UAs were still infants? Do we for God's sake want to deport these very American "illegals?" Deport them to where -- a country they cannot even remember, whose citizens speak a language the unwitting aliens might not even know?" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Dafydd raises several excellent points as well as asking some (possibly) rhetorical questions along the way. I'll address them in damnall order:

1. "Who are the most innocent of all illegal aliens? Those who were brought here as little children, too young even to understand what a national border is or what it means to cross without permission, let alone mature enough to consent in an informed way to illegal entry."

Question asked and answered, with enough justification that he makes it stick. The consular officer in me wants to ask though, how old? Where are we going to draw the line, specifically, because if implemented, some person on our side is actually going to need guidance and a legal basis and authority to make a hard and permanent decision that's going to have a decisive impact on another person's entire life.

2. "Such innocents need a name, so let us call them "unwitting aliens," UA -- they illegally entered the U.S. without their own consent or even knowledge.".

The use of the term "unwitting" appeals to former counterintelligence professional who lurks just below CAA's surface, since "witting" and "unwitting" are CI terms of art having very long standing.

3. "Do you want to call it amnesty? I don't mind; I don't even care. Does anybody deserve amnesty more than a person who never even committed the crime of which he stands convicted, since he was a little kid when it happened?"

In consular work, unlawful presence by a minor (under age 18) doesn't count in terms of constituting a visa ineligibility. That is, if someone walks up to the visa interview window at a U.S. consular section and applies for a U.S. visa, none of their unlawful presence (if any) prior to their 18th birthday counts as an automatic visa ineligibility. Unlawful presence that counts begins acruing on their 18th birthday, and an automatic visa ineligibility doesn't trigger until six months of unlawful presence are achieved.

Now, the fact that someone lived in the U.S. illegally as a minor and, presumably, may have strong ties in the U.S. (and, presumably, correspondingly weak ties in their county of citizenship) are certainly factors that a consular officer has to (and will) consider in terms of evaluating that former illegal alien minor in terms of their being a likely visa overstay. And that will get them a visa refusal under INA Sec. 214b.

But it's not automatic; it's based on the interviewing (and adjudicating) officer's best judgment considering the totality of the visa applicant's circumstances. So it can go either way. CAA has encountered more than one of these situations himself and made visa decisions each way.

Frankly, CAA has tended to be favorably impressed by young persons who, upon reaching age 18 as illegal aliens in the U.S., made sure to leave the U.S. before acquiring six months of unlawful presence as an adult. They took the trouble to learn the law and, as legal adults, comply with it.

(As a general rule, consular officers are inclined to view positively those instances where someone takes the trouble to comply with our sometimes opaque or arbitrary immigration law. That sort of law-abiding behavior is to be encouraged.)

This also can cut the other way; encountering those sorts of responsible acts by former illegal aliens has made CAA much less patient and understanding when he encounters someone who didn't hie themselves out of the U.S. before reaching the age of 18 and six months, but stuck around until they themselves ran into trouble and found themselves deported.

4. "There are a great many such UAs, in raw numbers; and for nearly all of them, the United States is literally the only country they have ever known. They grew up here, went to school here, made friends and enemies here; they are completely assimilated into American society; they think of themselves as Americans"

This the part that pulls your heartstrings, assuming you still have them. And most consular officers still do.

(CAA must be excepted from those ranks since he has no personal feelings on any subject. Okay, that's a lie.)

They say that most FSOs come into the Foreign Service with a fairly (politically) liberal outlook, and that after doing their first consular assignment, particularly visa work, they're still liberals, but not when it comes to illegal immigration.

(They are always saying things.)

I don't know if that's wholly true, but I do think that nobody joins the Foreign Service because they hate foreigners, because they're xenophobic and don't like other countries. Since we're all volunteers in this profession, we're a group self-selected to be at least interested in foreign countries, and at least respectful of other cultures and peoples.

Of course, a year or so of having people lie to you, bold-faced and un-embarrassed, every single day of visa work can tend to wear on one; plus, working on the implementation side of U.S. immigration law does at least produce someone who's become educated about the issues and implications of illegal immigration.

My second point (and I do have one) is about the nature and essence of citizenship.

Citizenship is like unto love and marriage; everyone thinks they know what they are but definitions are hard to pin down and there's a broad spectrum of them.

Consular officers have to implement the laws and regulations as they're written (and not as they would have written them themselves). That means we don't have discretion about facts and rules; our only areas of discretion are in areas where we are required to exercise judgment, as in when making adjudications.

So if the 14th Amendment and the relevant portions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) lay out the definitions of U.S. citizenship in lawyerly and orderly fashion, then those are the criteria we have to use. And we don't have discretion in terms of extending the privileges of citizenship (and I'm talking specifically about the right to reside within U.S. territory) to people who feel American.

That being said, I think that our Founding Fathers, the Framers, and even our congressional legislators today understand that citizenship, if it means anything at all beyond residential permission or preferences, involves a personal attachment beneath purely legalism. This goes under the heading of allegiance, which is a personal attachment or feeling that goes beyond the simply rational and enters the realm of the mystical and spiritual.

So forgive me if I don't get too upset about establishing a "path to citizenship" for persons who grew up in the same country I did and love it just like I do. Rules (and laws) aren't written to be broken, but some laws were just written to be amended.

Which brings be to this:

5. "Should we really tell these kids that they don't deserve in-state tuition, even if they have lived in one American state all their conscious life, because they're criminals? Do we want these young men and women to be forever barred from living legally in the only home they remember, the only country to which they feel loyalty, unable to establish residency anywhere in that country because of something their parents did when the UAs were still infants? Do we for God's sake want to deport these very American "illegals?""

Minor children can't be criminals because they're minors, unless a court says otherwise. This is where Dafydd goes a bit off the beam; illegal alien children don't generally get charged tuition until they're old enough (i.e., no longer children or "kids") to attend tertiary institutions such as universities or community colleges.

As I discussed in my "3." above, once illegal alien children reach age 18 they're legal adults (at least for purposes of this discussion) and thus responsible for their own actions and immigration violations.

That being said, the topic of in-state tuition for illegal aliens is muddied by the competing notions of resident status within states and that of legal (or illegal) residence in the U.S. as a whole. These are separate concepts, and under our federal system each state gets to decide not only who qualifies for "residence" within that state but who qualifies for "in-state" tuition for that state's public (i.e., state-funded) universities.

States are free to decide that persons who are unlawfully in the U.S. but physically residing in their state deserve (or don't deserve) to receive the benefit of reduced university or college tuition, presumably since they pay taxes in the state in which they physically reside. But there may be a political cost to individual politicians in those states (such as governors or legislators) who chose to take that stance.

(They knew the job was dangerous when they took it.)

"Most American family courts, in the case of divorce, will take the ages of the children into consideration when determining custody; when a child is deemed old enough to make an informed decision, he can decide whether to live with the father, the mother, or under some joint custody plan. Certainly any adult child (over the age of eighteen) can freely decide whether to live with one of his parents or move into his own place.

I call for the same sort of program for unwitting aliens as we have for the children of divorce: If a UA's parents are discovered and ordered deported, and if the UA is deemed old enough to give informed consent, he should be allowed to freely choose which country he will live in; and we should grant him permanent residency in the United States, if that's what he chooses.

That doesn't mean his parents get to stay as well; if they're subject to deportation, they're still subject to deportation. The UA can be raised by a legally resident relative, or in the extreme case, can be made a ward of the court and sent either to a foster home or adopted out. But any good parent should want the best for his child, correct?

If a UA comes to the authorities' attention by some other means -- say by applying for university and claiming, in all innocence, the in-state tuition of the local state university -- then the same applies: He is told that he is an unwitting alien and that he must choose.

In either case, once obtaining permanent residency, he is eligible to work towards citizenship, just as would be any other legal permanent resident.

(If such a law is passed, and a reasonable period of time elapses -- time for people to understand the system -- then UAs who don't apply for residency but instead take criminal steps to conceal their alien nationality should lose their UA status; they are no longer "unwitting;" they have become co-conspirators with their parents.)" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

It's a thought. What do you think?.

10/2

re: "Total BS: "These young people should not be punished for their parents’ mistakes." "

Fred Fry at Fred Fry International ("Citizen Journalist and Observer of Human Nature") had all kinds of criticism for amnesty.

Money quote(s):

"This week we had President Obama act to give illegal aliens amnesty and work permits. Their excuse is that they want to concentrate on deporting violent criminals. My first problem is that The Government is not following through in it's obligation to enforce the law. My second problem with this is that they even intend to permit criminals to stay, as long as they are not 'violent'. And given the way that these people lie, I am afraid to find out what their definition of 'violent' is. We already know that they like keeping illegal aliens who drive drunk around, at least until they kill someone. And where do they think these violent criminals come from? They are criminals first, and before they were criminals, they were merely an illegal alien." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

In consular work, we implement the law as it's written, not the way we'd necessarily have written it ourselves. That is to say, we've sworn an oath of office and carry it out to the best of our abilities.

"(A) more accurate statement would be that 'these young people should not be punished for their parents’ crimes.' Their intention is to simply reward all of them, even the criminals, other than a couple token violent criminals which they will use as evidence of being tough on crime. That too is a joke, as we should be putting them in jail, instead of sending them back home to cause havoc there."

There are numerous opportunities for waivers that are already built into our immigration law. Congress wrote them. Various presidents signed them into law. If we need more, then amend the law. That's how America rolls.

CAA is not unsympathetic to people who want a better life by coming to America. But we have our own laws on the subject, just as the countries our immigrants want to leave have their own laws.

"It is reported that not only will many illegal aliens be permitted to stay, but they will also be given work permits to compete for jobs against millions of Americans already out of work. The NY times story mentions that there are about 300,000 currently facing deportation proceedings that will be effected, but I suspect that that list will grow once illegal aliens figure out the best way to get in line to see a judge, to be excused from deportation and handed a work permit for a gift. After all, when you reward something, you get more of it."

8/20

re: "On Newt Gingrich; and immigration questions"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog*") insists on applying logic and reason to political issues.

Money quote(s):

"There are about 20 million illegal aliens living in the United States. Suppose that Congress and the President decided tomorrow that "they all must go." How would that come about? Merely transporting Twenty Million People is a non-trivial task. Assume that of the 20 million aliens in the US, ten million will require transport of 1,000 km (621 miles). That is ten billion passenger/kilometers. The total annual rail passenger traffic in the US, including commuter travel, is about 17 billion passenger/kilometers. They would have to be fed. Many would have medical needs. While many of them could be transported by rail to the Mexican border -- in boxcars? or must there be at least day coach transport? -- many would have to go elsewhere, some to Latin America, but many to Asia and Africa, and many to places that will refuse to accept them.

A non-trivial task, even assuming that we could identify them all, and assuming there would be no expensive legal actions required: just identify, apprehend, and transport. It would take an enormous budget to accomplish.

Now add political realities. It's all very well to grab some thug with a long criminal record and say "Enough! Out!" to the general applause of a vast majority, but even then there are going to be problems with the ACLU as well as various immigrant rights organizations. Assume that it can be done: what fraction of the 20 million will that account for?

Of course advocates of amnesty or the dream act like to show the example of a teenage girl brought to the US at age five, brought up to speak English and assimilate to American customs, earning a high school diploma with an A- average, and in general an all-American girl who ought to be college bound. Or the young oriental boy with much the same record. We don't have to concede that people with similar stories will be a very great fraction of the 20 million, but it is not zero, and every one of those will be paraded by the media as soon as apprehended."

Discussion of the logistics? Check.

Discussion of the costs? Check.

Discussion of political opposition? Check.

Discussion of likely poster children? Check.

"(A)n operation this large will require a lot of police agents. Do we insist that they all be capable of handcuffing teenagers and putting them on the train to the border? Do we want a lot of people with that attitude to have police power? And what of illegals who have joined the Armed Forces? Veterans? Active duty soldiers? An operation this large may well require action from the Legions: will they pay more attention to the orders of their officers or the appeals of their comrades? Of course that's a silly question, but my correspondent did talk about crossfire and punishing treason, which probably means civil war, and the Legions, both Regulars and various reserves and militias and National Guard are certainly not going to be idle while that happens."

This is why I don't favor a "big round-up" solution to illegal immigration. The cure is worse than the disease. Dr. Pournelle isn't afraid to think past the it-couldn't-happen-here emo-llectual linders about civil-military conflict.

"The problem of the illegals amongst us will not go away simply because we don't think about it.

Note, incidentally, that Newt distinguishes between the right to be a legal resident and citizenship. This is not brought up in most "amnesty" discussions, but it should be. Citizens have rights, including the right to sponsor other immigrants. The Supreme Court has held that illegal immigrants have rights very similar if not identical to citizens, but that is not the plain language of the Constitution. A sane immigration policy will make that distinction -- including entitlements.

I am not going to "solve" the illegal immigrant problem here, but I will say that denouncing as "amnesty" anything other than a policy of 'deport them all and deport them now' is not useful. We aren't going to deport them all, and no Congress or President will do that, nor could even if it were thought desirable. The United States is not going to erect detention camps nor will we herd people into boxcars. We can't even get the southern border closed."

Any amnesty must be exceptional. That is, exceptionally positive candidates for amnesty receive it, others not-so-much. The honor students and military veterans who'd qualify would self-identify, come forward, and receive it. Bio-metrics and police checks, &tc., would have to apply. Age limits and a prior-to date sometime in the past would be necessary as well, otherwise it only encourages even more illegal immigration.

And I would quibble with former-Speaker Gingrich about the "right to be a legal resident." In what Constitutional article may I find that "right" ennumerated?

Certain classes of person, qualifying under specific statues, have the "right" to petition on behalf of other persons (usually relatives, sometimes employees) to obtain an immigration benefit, including legal permanent residence (LPR). That can include self-petition in certain circumstances.

"We can and should do more to enforce employment laws; but do we really want police coming around to demand "your papers" from our gardeners and fry cooks and homemakers? For if "your papers, please" becomes common practice, there will be demands for equality; for not profiling; for equal opportunity harassment -- but you get the idea."

Just keep the pressure on. Require proof of legal residency (I had to do it whenever I applied for a job) and when it's found out, terminate employment (or fine the employer). If an employee is so blessed valuable that the employer is willing to pay the fine, then perhaps they should be sponsoring (i.e., petitioning on their behalf) them for LPR status. Make both the fine about double the cost of the immigration petition, and that not insignificant (but not necessarily punitive).

The idea is to take them "out of the shadows" and get them enrolled in our public life. Document them. Fingerprint them. Hell, DNA-sample them; but limit that to out-of-the-shadows illegal/undocumented immigrants, line-crossers, and deportees.

And if they break other laws, commit felonies (or three-or-more un-related misdemeanors; that is, not stemming from the same offense) then they get on the conveyor belt to deportation.

IIRC, deportees are barred from legal travel to the U.S. for a period of 10 years (the first time). Apologies: my immigration law book is still in a crate somewhere.

"(P)erhaps, perhaps, there will come a time when there is an actual serious discussion of the subject, and we can come up with policies and tactics that have a chance of working and of actually being adopted.

But we will never get there so long as bringing up the subject for discussion makes you a traitor."

Gingrich? A traitor?

(Nah: just someone I wouldn't want dating a family member.)

_____

Note: Chaos Manor has moved!

re: "Immigration; Voodoo Science"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog *") discusses the problems associated with discussing amnesty.

Money quote(s):

"Any hint that there can be some form of amnesty enormously increases the incentives for others to come here illegally. Even discussing the subject can produce an increase in the flood of undocumented migrants aka illegal immigrants. The system is already saturated, and we should do nothing to worsen the situation.

It has always been the position of Republican -- and some, although lately fewer, Democratic -- politicians that amnesty cannot be seriously proposed or debated until the borders are closed. The problem is that even talking about it can worsen the problem.

Perhaps that should be the position to take: we won't talk about this until the borders are under control. It is the position that politicians ought to take, and Newt's speculations, while reasonable from a political philosopher, are improper for a candidate for office. Of course any move to close the borders will do the same -- get in now, they're cracking down -- but there's not much help for that. A comprehensive immigration policy must be implemented quickly and effectively, with crackdowns on employment and employers as well as illegal workers, along with effective control of the borders." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA)

&

"The high cost of imprisonment is very much part of the immigration problem. There is little incentive for the recently deported not to try again, and again, and again --- they know we don't want to jail them. It costs too much."

re: "Let’s see. What else can the GOP surrender on…? "

Jeff G. at Protein Wisdom ("because not just anybody can summarize the news") has a good handle on the nature of the problem.

Money quote(s):

"I understand that we can’t deport the more than 12 million illegals already in this country; but we shouldn’t reward them with a “path to citizenship” either. Secure the border. Then let the illegals decide what they want to do once we make it clear that we will not be granting any amnesty to lawbreakers. Period.

If these people are living scared in the shadows, there’s a reason for that: they are here illegally. And with real unemployment and underemployment already at close to 20% in this country, the last thing we need to do is flood the labor market with millions of legal, unskilled laborers.

You want to talk to me about increasing guest worker programs? Fine. But in the meantime, we need to be cracking down on employers who take advantage of illegal labor — in conjunction with releasing these same employers from growth-choking taxation and the kinds of ridiculous and redundant regulatory burdens that drive up the cost of doing business to begin with."

Nothing dramatic. Simply enforce the laws that are already on the books.

re: "Another Stealth Amnesty"

Thanks to Federal Agent 86 at Federale ("Because Policing The Internet Is Not For The Weak Of Heart") for the mention.

Money quote(s):

"The amnesty campaign is in full swing, both an overt effort and now a covert effort on the right to give all illegal aliens in the U.S. status that will eventually lead to citizenship and a Demoncrat majority based on third world immigration."

"(O)nce the illegals are legalized with "registration," what arguement will there to prohibit the illegals from being granted LPR status? None. They will be here, they will be working, they will be paying taxes, they will be on welfare. The illegals will be defacto Legal Permanent Residents. Without any doubt some liberal federal judge will see the obvious and grant LPR status based on some manufactured penumbra of the Constitution."

&

" "registration" is just another RINO inside the beltway stealth amnesty."

WT - SIEGEL: A compromise to please both left and right? U.S. could offer illegals registration but leave amnesty indeterminate.

From my archive of press clippings:

Washington Times

SIEGEL: A compromise to please both left and right?

U.S. could offer illegals registration but leave amnesty indeterminate

Thursday, April 8, 2010

By William D. Siegel

One of the critical lessons of the past year-plus of the Obamacare fiasco is that it is often more practical and reasonable to tackle such issues piecemeal. Another area where such a "noncomprehensive" approach could be helpful is illegal immigration; especially before President Obama commences a long struggle for comprehensive reform this year.

Read the whole editorial here.

Snippet(s):

"The "noncomprehensive" near-term approach proactively establishes a defined class of I/Us and separates it from all others (including all future I/Us) by forcing I/Us to make a choice to come forward first before they know their ultimate legislative disposition. In exchange for exposing themselves to a registration process, they are granted immunity from prosecution and deportation for their illegal entry. All other status questions - including any future benefits or penalties to be granted, such as requirements for citizenship, taxation, health care, employment rights, etc. - are left for future congressional determination, just as exists today.

A period is to be chosen, for instance six months, in which notice to register is given. If one does so register truthfully, he can then live "in full light" without fear of consequence for his illegal entry. The immunity, of course, is limited to illegal entry, not for other illegal acts. By coming forth, these I/Us create a newly defined and limited class. One way, perhaps, to identify this class might be to utilize the tamper-proof ID card currently being discussed. And given the effort afforded the 2010 census, there should be no aversion to requiring I/Us to go through a serious registration process.

Further, for I/Us who choose not to register, this approach requires deportation without interference. Congress should make clear its intent that failure to register supersedes any defense against deportation."
&

" "Amnesty" has had different meanings in this context. To some, it means granting anything short of deportation. To others, it has referred to the granting of some pathway to citizenship or other benefits thought not to have been properly earned. A third benefit is that by defining one group of I/Us, amnesty can be refused all others; something that goes a long way to satisfying the right without first determining the ultimate outcome for those who show good faith by registering."

_____

William D. Siegel is a trustee of the Hudson Institute.