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.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

2 comments:
I don't see anything in this for conservatives. Any "registration" program will inevitably lead to legal permanent residency and eventual citizenship for the illegals. Few will fail to "register." The courts will inevitably treat "registrtation" as defacto legal permanent residency. Much like the first amnesty, the promised enforcement actions like deportation of following illegals will not happen. And just what benefits do "registrants" get? Work permission? Increased welfare access?
It might work if the "registration" is in fact a temporary non-immigrant visa/work permit; say 5 years then they have to go. But that would be unacceptable to the left and it doesn't address anchor babies, etc.
Basically a non-starter.
Why should there be anything in this for conservatives? They didn't win.
Post a Comment