re: "Immigration (Again)"

The DiploMad 2.0 ("Wracked with angst over the fate of our beloved and horribly misgoverned Republic, the DiploMad returns to do battle on the world wide web, swearing death to political correctness, and pulling no punches.") is mostly positive about the latest proposed immigration reform.

Money quote(s):

"I see that the Trump Administration, apparently, will make an effort to reform radically our immigration system. That's good. I also notice that there seems to be an emphasis on merit and extra points for speaking English and having a skill (ABBA does well on both!) Those are also good things. I see, also, the beginning of a debate, very quiet one for now, on the key issues I raised above, to wit, do we need immigration, how much, and what kinds? This is all good. I continue to believe that the President should suspend all or nearly all immigration for a period of time until we draft a new immigration code."

First glance at the proposed RAISE Act.

RAISE = Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy

You can read the proposed legislation at Sen. Cotton's web page.

A couple of things caught my notice beyond the obvious things which are summarized, also by Sen. Cotton, here.

First, the obvious:

 - Diversity Visa (DV) program eliminated;

 - Refugees capped at 50,000 per annum;

 - Spouses and minor children still eligible to immigrate but not other extended family members;

 - New non-immigrant visa category, renewable every five years, for elderly parents;

 - Grandfathers pending immigrant visa cases for eliminated categories but only if applied for before the introduction of this bill and scheduled to travel within one year of the bill's passage;

 - Introduces a points-based system to replace current employment-based visa categories;

 - Makes naturalization of an immigrant conditional on the immigrant's sponsor having reimbursed any benefits received by the immigrant during the sponsorship.

There are a bunch of little editorial points, basically housekeeping and neatening-up the existing statute, plus replacing "Attorney General" with "Secretary of Homeland Security" in a few places where this should already have happened since INS (among other things) moved from DOJ to DHS.

CAA is agnostic about eliminating the DV visa.  It's probably served its purpose if its purpose was to, er, diversify the flow of immigrants to the U.S., given how long it's been running.  So declare it a success and move on.  Since immigrant communities now exist (shout-out to Minnesota!) from lots of places (shout out to Somalia!) where few-to-no immigrants used to come from, "chain" immigration from those places will undoubtedly continue, although significantly diminished due to the elimination of non-immediate relative visa categories.

The number of refugees the U.S. takes-in is at the discretion of the president, under current law.  Fifty-thousand is at the high end of the numbers the U.S. has tended to receive over time and, frankly, if there should be a time and situation where president decides a number exceeding that should be admitted then he or she can always ask Congress for a higher number that year (and or succeeding years), and make the case for it.  It's not like trying to pass a Constitutional amendment, and if the need is compelling perhaps even congressmen and senators can be persuaded.

Eliminating the family-based visa categories beyond spouses and minor children is a big deal.  It will drastically clamp-down on "chain immigration" over time, which I think is the point.  I think there's room for improvement on how it's implemented, purely on the basis of fairness, which I'll address below.

Something I noticed in the bill which I haven't seen commented upon elsewhere is changing the age for minor children from 21 to 18 years.  It's a fair point, we consider children in most respects to be adults and on their own, more-or-less, at age 18.  It also doesn't shut the door to the 18+ year-old children from applying for student visas and coming over when the rest of their family immigrates; in fact, that would make a lot of sense, assuming the families have the resources to support it.  They would then, as they finished their higher (and higher) education be free to apply to stay under the points-based system being introduced by this bill.  

For those cases where the families don't have the resources to put their children into colleges and universities, what I'd like to see is a conditional status created that would allow the 18-21 year-old children, assuming they were otherwise qualified, to enlist in the military or naval services so they could qualify for citizenship on their own efforts.  Just a suggestion.

The five-year renewable non-immigrant visa for elderly parents makes a lot of sense and I'm not going to rake it over here.  CAA has issued immigrant visas to plenty of people who would fit into this category.  It's certainly an interesting idea and open to debate.

The points-based immigration system designed to replace our existing employment-based petitions is a system similar to that used by both Canada and Australia, two immigrant-friendly countries much like our own in many respects.  There's lots of room for haggling over how the points might be allocated, but there's also no reason it couldn't be revisited in the future to adjust how points are earned.

The issue of grandfathering pending immigrant cases where the visa category is being eliminated touches a nerve for me.  The numbers of visas for non-immediate relatives has an annual numeric cap, apportioned by country.  There are some countries (Mexico and Philippines spring readily to mind) where the wait is decades long.  These are people who, dutifully complying with our laws, have been patiently waiting to legally immigrate to the U.S., sometimes literally dying before their "number" comes up.  The way I read the draft bill, the first cut-off is that they have to have filed their petition no later than the when this bill was introduced.  The second cut-off is that they have to be scheduled arrive in the U.S. no later than one year after (or the day before one year) after the bill is passed into law.

What I don't see is the elimination of the numerical limitation, so that those waiting all these years for their turn, actually get their turn.  Perhaps I missed it?

CAA is all about legal immigrants lawfully complying with our immigration laws.  So it goes down sideways for us on the implementing side of the equation to be breaking faith with those who have been earnestly attempting to comply with our laws.  CAA is a big fan of people who comply with U.S. immigration laws; CAA believes people who start out by complying with U.S. immigration laws are more likely to continue being law-abiding than people who begin by ignoring or violating our laws.  Just sayin'.

CAA would like to see those waiting to obey the law get their chance to do so.  Let the bill be amended to let DHS and USCIS estimate annually how many of the pending cases they can process, irrespective of what the annual numerical limit has been, and then let USCIS and the State Department process those cases, until the backlog is gone.  Finished.  Finito.  Fertig.

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: "Senators Propose U.S. Visas for Alien Home Buyers with $500K in Cash Investment, Dictators and Drug Lords Lining Up Over There"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit (" one of the best niche blogs for Foreign Service folks ") examined some proposed legislation.

Money quote(s):

"WSJ reports that Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Mike Lee (R., Utah) are preparing to introduce a bipartisan bill that would give residence visas to foreigners who spend at least $500,000 to buy houses in the U.S.

According to WSJ, the proposed measure would offer visas to any foreigner making a cash investment of at least $500,000 on residential real-estate—a single-family house, condo or townhouse. Applicants can spend the entire amount on one house or spend as little as $250,000 on a residence and invest the rest in other residential real estate, which can be rented out."

The catch is that this sort of visa won't carry with it any authorization for work or employment.

"(T)he deep pockets foreigners with $500K can buy houses in the United States, and will be granted resident visas, but they’re not allowed to work. Of course, with 500K, it’s not like they’re the kind you see who shows up to pick apples in Washington State or oranges in Florida.

We are obviously looking for independently wealthy foreigners who do not need to work while they enjoy their new houses in a real American neighborhood."

As a relatively recent homeowner myself, I'm persuadable that homeowners pump a lot of money into local economies, what with what it takes to keep the inside indoors and the outside outdoors.

"It used to be that people who want to come here and can’t get visas pay smugglers to sneak them in. I hear that the price go from $2,000 to name that price. Now, under this proposed bill, people with $500K can come here with a resident visa, and we’ll even roll out the red carpet.

Wanna guess who has that much cash floating around? Well, for starters, dictators, drug lords, drug traffickers and their girlfriends/boyfriends always have that much cash around, in case.

But, but … that’s not going to happen because they will be screened scrupulously, and they won’t be able to take American jobs because working here without a separate permit would be illegal under this bill. Besides DHS/ICE will go after them. You know, like they’ve gone after other illegal aliens and overstays in this country. The same agency who has no idea when foreign visitors exit the country. Or not."

I only wish I didn't share DS's skepticism regarding DHS's interest (which is not the same as its ability) in immigration enforcement.

On the other hand, the bureaucratic imperative to go after low-hanging fruit, i.e., the easy way to improve your arrest and deportation statistics, is to go after otherwise law-abiding and non-dangerous violaters who can be detained and processed without fuss or muss.

"I have yet to read the text of the bill but I already feel for our consular officers working at over 250 consular posts. Videoconferencing, also coming soon to the a virtual interview booth near you.

Might this be a good time to suggest that the State Department invite Senators Schumer and Lee to go through ConGen training and deploy both under temporary consular commissions for at least 180 days at a visa issuing post? Preferably to Guangzhou, Manila, Lagos and Mexico City conducting visa interviews?

It’s a fun gig, you guys! This would help you both understand the process, as well as teach you that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service process nonimmigrant visa petitions; but nonimmigrant visas are issued by the Department of State. I know it’s confusing. You will also learn that the State Department already charges $60 for expedited processing of U.S. passports (*** so no need to add that in the new bill unless you’re upping the tab). They’ll teach you how to read faces and how to administer a smell test to determine who is telling a fib; a great trick by the way to bring back to Congress. During training you’ll pretend like you’re in a different country, and then you will actually be shipped to a different country where all your new acquaintances become your best friends as you see them in front of your visa interview window. You won’t regret it ever or forget the experience for that matter! And it will help make you become better legislators especially on this interesting and exciting field of immigration."

10/21

Implementing the laws and regulations as they're written, not as we might write them ourselves

One of CAA's boring little bromides about being a foreign service officer (FSO) generally (and a consular officer specifically) is that FSOs don't make U.S. foreign policy; they implement and facilitate the foreign policy of the United States as established by the president, the Congress, and the secretary of state.

(There are exceptions to this, but they tend to be in situations of grave extremity out somewhere far beyond the beltway, sort of when an FSO becomes a "strategic corporal.")

So most sober FSOs, if they meet someone who says they're interested in making foreign policy, shouldn't encourage them to become FSOs. They should instead direct them to the arena of electoral politics, because it is politicians who make foreign policy, not diplomats.

(Of course, if a politician makes a successful foreign policy, or even survives long enough that people forget their unsuccessful foreign policies, they become known as statesmen.)

For consular officers the mantra is slightly different: consular (and immigration) officers don't make immigration law, regulations, or policies. Consular (and immigration) officers implement the immigration laws, regulations, and policies as they are written, and not as we might (even if we agreed among ourselves) have written them ourselves.

One corollary to all that has to do with public criticism of existing immigration laws, regulations, and policies.

CAA is more than happy to discuss positive and negative aspects of proposed or pending legislation while Congress is debating and deliberating. However, once something is signed into law, CAA will salute smartly and do his best to make it work.

That's what you sign up for when you raise your right hand and take the oath of office. (And if you get to a point where you just can't do that anymore, then it's time to think about hanging up your guns.)

Not that long ago, a change in visa interview policy raised some eyebrows (and hackles). You see, CAA maintains a very post-9/11 mindset when it comes to interviewing visa applicants, and is very on-board with the post-9/11 policy of interviewing all visa applicants, and in conducting as thorough a screening of visa waiver travelers as is practical.

So CAA viewed the Visa Pilot Program with a critical, even jaundiced eye. And came away somewhat grudgingly satisfied with what they have in mind.

So what about the president's recent statement?

Well, CAA tried to find if this was an executive order, but there doesn't seem to be anything published by the White House to indicate that one's actually been published on the subject. Apparently that's not how this is being handled.

(CAA had assumed, based upon all the hollering by the commentariat, that the president had essentially enacted the DREAM Act as an executive order. But that's not actually the case.)

But the president's remarks, once read in their entirety, left a big enough clue: the secretary of homeland security is the person actually issuing this order.

The key points:

"DHS continues to focus its enforcement resources on the removal of individuals who pose a national security or public safety risk, including immigrants convicted of crimes, violent criminals, felons, and repeat immigration law offenders. Today’s action further enhances the Department’s ability to focus on these priority removals.

Under this directive, individuals who demonstrate that they meet the following criteria will be eligible for an exercise of discretion, specifically deferred action, on a case by case basis:

1. Came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
   
   
2. Have continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and are present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
   
   
3. Are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharged veterans of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
   
   
4. Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;
   
   
5. Are not above the age of thirty.

Only those individuals who can prove through verifiable documentation that they meet these criteria will be eligible for deferred action. Individuals will not be eligible if they are not currently in the United States and cannot prove that they have been physically present in the United States for a period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding today’s date. Deferred action requests are decided on a case-by-case basis. DHS cannot provide any assurance that all such requests will be granted. The use of prosecutorial discretion confers no substantive right, immigration status, or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights.

While this guidance takes effect immediately, USCIS and ICE expect to begin implementation of the application processes within sixty days"

Essentially, the DHS secretary is going to de-prioritize enforcement of immigration laws against a class of persons residing unlawfully in the U.S. based upon the reality that DHS has only so much in the way of resources, only so many enforcement agents, only so many budget dollars, only so many hours in a day, and only so many cells in their jails.

Executives are expected to exercise both leadership and management. Prioritizing the outlay of limited resources is part of the function of an executive. So that sounds, on the face of it, reasonable enough.

CAA is something of an executive, a manager, even (dare I say it?) a leader in the consular arena of immigration and has been known, when mentoring new vice consuls about how to implement and apply visa ineligibilities, that the bottom line for all the different reasons that someone can be legally barred from coming to the U.S. is a simple question: is this person a danger to the republic? Is this person likely to present a threat to national security, to commit crimes against U.S. citizens, to transmit dangerous (when considering certain medical ineligibilities) contagious diseases among the American people?

The group of people described by the DHS secretary don't, aside from their having been (as minor children) brought to the U.S. illegally, fit the bill for the bottom line as I've described it above.

It follows logically enough that if you're going to publicly announce that DHS finds this particular, clearly-defined, class of illegal aliens an insufficient threat to the nation to expend resources to deport them, that you then cowboy up and not ignore the problem the represent either.

It's quite clever, really, except that the solution DHS is going to, temporarily mind you, pursue will then require the expenditure of those scarce resources I mentioned, in order to receive, process, and provide temporary work permits, &tc.

You see, for legal immigrants, the cost expended in processing their immigration paperwork is recouped through the imposition of application fees. That is, Congress expects that the system will pay for itself so that they don't have to appropriate a huge budget every year to pay for it out of general tax revenues.

So I'm missing the part about what sort of application and processing fees are going to be imposed on the one million (give or take) illegal immigrants who may qualify for this temporary dispensation. Because, assuming all of those eligible go ahead and apply, a million (temporary) amnesty applications are going to take a lot of people away from processing the paperwork of legal immigrants who've been patiently waiting their turn to immigrate lawfully to this country.

Oh, and remember that oath of office? It's to the U.S. Constitution. So I read that every once in a while, when the mood strikes me. (It's really not that long a document.)

So CAA will admit there may be some Constitutional issues about whether it's strictly lawful for the executive branch to simply announce that it's too hard to implement and enforce the laws that Congress passes (or doesn't pass).

It's a gutsy move, frankly, and I'd have liked to see it done long ago in relation to immigration laws, but not necessarily in this context.

Congress has, IMHO, long left the immigration enforcement arms of government somewhat starved of resources to enforce the entirety of the immigration laws it's passed, and many have suggested that to be deliberate, that Congress (or at least some congressmen) wanted the laws on the books, but didn't necessarily want them enforced all that thoroughly. (Reasonable people can disagree on this.)

That being said, I'm sure this will end up in the courts, one way or another; will likely reach the Supreme Court, and in the meanwhile the rest of us working stiffs in government will just follow the lawful directives of our elected and appointed officials while the big paychecks, er, brains sort this out for us.

After all, either Congress will enact legislation making it legal, or the courts will tell us it's legal for the executive to prioritize this and handle the fallout accordingly, or it'll all get thrown out and DHS will have plenty of information on about a million self-identified illegal immigrants with which to jump-start their deportation proceedings.

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: "The Big Lizards Immigration Reform"

Dafydd at Big Lizards ("this fershlugginer web site") has a whole raft of suggestions for immigration reform.

Money quote(s):

"The primary goal of reform is henceforth to select immigrants solely on the basis of two criteria: assimilability (A) and benefit to the United States (B), not by any other criteria (such as race, country of origin, class within the country of origin, having relatives already living legally in the United States, or any other criteria currently used."

Some of his ideas are fairly common-sensical but he goes way off-beam with the stuff about indentured servitude. There are enough problems with modern-day slavery without adding this to the mix.

10/4

re: "Mickey Kaus: Perry's Positions on Immigration Are Even Worse Than I Thought"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ has his own ideas about immigration reform.

Money quote(s):

"I've long been in favor of a guest worker program. Liberals hate this idea because they want immigrant workers voting in elections, and also supporting the American social welfare system (because, being citizens, they'd be beneficiaries). The unions hate the idea because they don't like the idea of immigrants with legal status competing for jobs.

Many conservatives don't like the idea because they want illegal immigrants stopped, period."

Like a lot of consular officers who work hard and conscientiously in implementing lawful immigration programs, illegal immigration pretty much burns my shorts. (We are not amused!) There's an in-joke that plays on the predominently liberal flavor of our diplomatic corps: new foreign service officers are liberal, but after their first tour interviewing (and adjudicating) visa applicants they're still liberal, but not when it comes to immigration.

"(T)here is a fact on the ground that cannot easily be ignored that American agriculture relies, to a serious extent, on immigrant farm workers coming in to collect the harvests. There is a glib response to that -- "We'll just encourage Americans to take those jobs!" -- and I suppose that's possible, but the American public of 2011 is not the American public of, say, 1932. Whereas once American workers might take a bus to the heartland and work the fields for a season, American workers no longer feel they need to do that, as government unemployment programs don't require them to change jobs or to travel long distances for work. So, in the main, they don't." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

If things got bad enough (and here's hoping they don't), that lack of needful feeling could change drastically. But for now, with the modern welfare state (and the option of moving back home to your parent's house) American citizen labor is unlikely to be quite that mobile.

"(P)art of the reason there aren't any serious immigration reforms -- and I mean on the enforcement side, here -- is because neither side is particularly willing to confront the facts on the ground. Liberals demand an amnesty and citizenship to goose their vote share (and further drain our social welfare finances), which is a non-starter for conservatives. Business-oriented conservatives, however, block real immigration enforcement, because they feel those enforcement efforts don't take into account the fact that many businesses have come to rely on immigrant workers, and would be disrupted by any kind of crackdown that was more than superficial (which is what our current raids mostly are).

To me, the best solution is to permit guest-worker visas but only for those industries that have long relied on immigrant illegal workers (agriculture, mainly), with a smaller pool of visas for industries that have recently begun to rely on such workers (hotels, restaurants), and none at all for industries which are just recently beginning to indulge in illegal hiring.

Then start reducing the visas for the middle category (the hospitality industries), to begin ratcheting this practice down in a slow way, forcing them little by little to stop hiring illegals.
Such guest worker visas should only be generous for the one industry that seems to be historically dependent on seasonal workers (agriculture).

That is, less of a war on illegal immigration, and more of a containment and rollback model."

Ace seems considerably more in touch with public sentiment on this issue, in severe contrast to our elected/appointed leadership which seems bent on expanding categories of worker programs.

"I think our laws do not reflect the reality that immigrants pick crops, and there aren't a huge number of Americans ready and able to step in were they to stop. Businesses will hire them illegally because they have to, and then the political structure will turn a blind eye to all of this because they know it's necessary, and the situation continues, with no support on either side for any kind of actual governing law.

Because there is no majority for any scheme of law here, we've all collectively decided, essentially, to keep the old "law" in place and just ignore the fact it's being broken left and right."

(9/6)

re: "The Golden Days Are Over"

Dave Schuler at The Glittering Eye looks at economic, immigration, and trade policies.

Money quote(s):

"I think that trade and immigration policies must conform to actual needs and realities rather than some ideological view. The reality is that we have millions of unemployed unskilled or semi-skilled people here in the U. S. already and wages for unskilled and semi-skilled workers have been stagnant or falling for decades, a sure sign of flagging demand. Our immigration policy wih respect to Mexico should reflect that reality; sadly, it does not."

The current (our second annual) "recovery summer" is driving this point home to the point where even Congress may catch on to what everyone who isn't Mexican (and petitioning for their under-educated and unskilled relatives) already knows: unlimited (which is the result of lax enforcement) immigration of under-skilled workers does nothing but pull the rug out from under our own (U.S. citizen) labor pool.

"China poses a unique challenge for American economic policy. I trace many of our economic woes to three events, all involving China: China’s 1979 abandoning of its official policy of autarky, China’s pegging of the yuan to the dollar in 1993, and the admission of China to the WTO in 2001. I think that these actions eroded manufacturing jobs in the U. S., increased our imports from China to the detriment of American-made goods, and drove money into housing construction with the results that we see around us today. Our trade policy with respect to China should reflect the unique challenges that China presents; it does not."

Not being an economist, I'm unable to discern the linkage between the three Chinese developments cited and increased U.S. housing construction. Anyone care to spell this out for me?

re: "Rationalizing Immigration Policy"

Dave Schuler at The Glittering Eye has some thoughts about immigration reform.

Money quote(s):

"(O)ur policy on immigration could learn something from Canada’s"

Last time I looked at Canada's immigration policy, what struck me were two things:

First, that it used a "point system" for each potential immigrant which added up to determine who qualified and who didn't. Things like fluency in English and French were given weight, as well as other language skills.

Second, they were rather more up-front (at the time) about their "investor" categories of immigrants. If you had the money (and were not otherwise unqualified to be admitted), you could get a visa.

(This may have changed.)

"What would a rational immigration policy for the U. S. be? First, we need to abandon the priority of family reunification that has guided U. S. policy for nearly the last half century. We could use youngish immigrants with college degrees or better, too—I have some sympathy with the suggestion that every PhD or professional degree awarded in the United States to a foreign national should come with a green card stapled to it.

I think that we should increase the number of work visas available to Mexican nationals substantially on the one hand while enforcing our laws both in the workplace and at the border on the other. However, this shouldn’t be a long-term policy. The stagnant income levels and high unemployment rates of unskilled workers in the U. S. tell the story: we don’t need more unskilled workers in the U. S. and we shouldn’t subsidize business models that depend on a continuous new supply. I don’t find the prospect of a future U. S. that competes with China or Vietnam for who can pay the least to unskilled workers particularly appealing."

I'd be a little less generous about granting permanent residency to any foreigner who earns a professional degree in the U.S. We already have too many lawyers, for instance.

Also, DHS (and its predecessor organization, INS) haven't exactly covered themselves in glory and distinction regarding their policing and screening of educational institutions eligible to participate in the issuance of student visas.

If something more nuanced than a purely blanket approach is used, however, this idea nonetheless has considerable merit.

As for work visas for Mexicans: sadly I haven't got all that much confidence in Mexican travel documents to the point where I'd believe that every participant in this sort of program was actually Mexican. That being said, a big part of the problem with our "undocumented" Mexican illegal population is that they are, for all practical purposes, undocumented and unpoliced. Issue them a tamper-proof ID card similiar to the BCC with their photo, collect biometrics (including DNA) at the time of application, grant a temporary (one year?) work permit along with each (adult's) card. And then take it from there. If they get into sufficient trouble, then the card and status are terminated.

The application fee for the card should be designed to include one-way travel to the applicant's home town. So if they get bounced, they've already paid for the ticket in advance.

re: "Let’s Talk Amnesty Again"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") presents the downside of immigration reform attempts.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hy bring up amnesty for illegal immigrants now? And you just know it’s a loser issue in how dishonest people excusing illegal immigration are. For one, they always try to group in illegal immigration with legal immigration since illegal immigration is pretty indefensible by itself. And the people for amnesty are always so schizophrenic on whether illegal immigration is a bad thing in the first place. Like Obama is proudly making the ridiculous claim that the border fence has been completed — which suggests keeping out illegal immigrants is a good thing — but then wants us to pass amnesty — which suggests keeping out illegal immigrants isn’t a big deal. Which is it? And the amnesty people are never clear on what their endgame is. Do they want to get rid of borders? Do they want to keep a broken system they can demagogue about? Who knows. No wonder amnesty people are always turning to the racist charge since a coherent argument isn’t an option.

I think people would have a lot more sympathy, though, for illegal immigrants if they were more sorry about it. Like if they all were like, “We’re really sorry to do this, but you have to understand how much Mexico sucks and how nice your country is. You wouldn’t want to live in Mexico.” But instead illegal immigrants are all indignant we even care about this and think they’re owed citizenship." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

A little bit of remorse would go a long way in this regard, rather than ahistorical claims that they didn't cross the borders, the borders crossed them.

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: "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."

JO - Grappling with broad-brush deportation

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Observer

Grappling with broad-brush deportation

Monday, March 08, 2010

WE are told in yesterday's Sunday Observer that more than 12,000 people were deported to Jamaica over the last four years. Many, many thousands more have been deported over the last two decades.

Read the whole editorial here.

Snippet(s):

"Talk never stops about deportations and the consequential difficulties for the Jamaican society. Invariably, Jamaicans focus on the perceived worsening of their country's crime problem as a result of hardcore criminal deportees from the United States, Britain and elsewhere entering the local underworld."

"(S)ince the passage of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in the United States, even unpaid fees for traffic offences can become grounds for deportation of non-US citizens, including green card holders."

&

"We would expect that the authorities in North America and Britain -- from whence the bulk of Jamaican deportees originate -- have long had to cope with such anti-social behaviour as a direct result of deportation-induced broken homes and families."

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.

re: "Denmark Tightens Immigration Rules"

Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna ("At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war.") relayed some heartening news from Denmark.

re: "Obama: You Know, We Might Want To Start Thinking About Comprehensive Immigration Reform"

Drew M. at Ace of Spades HQ considers the timing.

Money quote(s):

"Considering that immigration isn't exactly a front burner issue for most people, this is clearly an effort to get the Democratic base, especially Hispanic voters, energized. After a year of issues that unite Republicans and divide Democrats (Cap and Trade, Health Care, Afghanistan, etc.), the White House must desperately want to put something on the table that divides Republicans for a change. Yes, there are some members of the Democratic coalition that oppose immigration reform, though labor has come along recently, but it's still a more divisive issue for Republicans and conservatives."