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.

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.

LAT - College Board steps into the immigration debate

Los Angeles Times

College Board steps into the immigration debate

Trustees of the association that administers the SAT vote to support the Dream Act, which would offer some undocumented youths a path to citizenship through college or the military.


By Ben Meyerson


April 22, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- The College Board is supporting legislation that would offer some undocumented youths a path to citizenship through college or the military.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The association best known for the SAT and AP tests it administers is stepping into the contentious issue for the first time, just as President Obama is signaling that he may encourage lawmakers to overhaul immigration laws this year. The board's trustees have voted unanimously to support the legislation, known as the Dream Act."

&

"The bill would allow students who illegally entered the U.S. when they were 15 or younger to apply for conditional legal resident status if they have lived in the country for five or more years and graduated from high school or received a GED. If they attended college or served in the military for two or more years, they could be granted citizenship.

Conditional legal status could make the immigrants eligible for in-state college tuition, depending on local laws, and would allow them to compete for some forms of federal financial assistance."

_____



bmeyerson@tribune.com



Times staff writer Gale Holland contributed to this report.

NYT - Immigration Reform and Hard Times

New York Times

Immigration Reform and Hard Times


Published: April 13, 2009

The Obama administration said last week that it would begin a major push for immigration reform this year. The country’s two big labor federations just announced that they are joining forces to support that effort, which includes a path to citizenship for undocumented workers. That’s double good news.

Read the whole opinion piece here.