Jun 15 2006
Immigration Solution – Again
The readers here reflect both sides of the immigration debate (the liberal way of full amnesty through immediate citizenship is not supported here). I can see a coming together in the comments here as people finally give up on not budging and start working towards optimal (and yes comprehensive) solutions. The following is a response I wrote to reader Terrye who was noting that the problems we see today were made much worse by the mod in the House Bill to make illegal immigration an felony:
I agree with you on the poison pill that was making these acts felonies. Jay walking is illegal. Driving with a tail light out is illegal. There are felonies and misdemeanors, and guess which group has the vast majority of laws (i.e., crimes). You guessed it – misdemeanors. If the House hadn’t been so stupidly cocky and put that in (and then let the Dems keep it in) we would have solutions by now.
Now we have nothing. Absolutely nothing. And because of the hardened positioning on the far right (which I am glad and proud to see melting away here as readers find the common ground and mutual respect) we will not see anything this fall. But we could. A little optimizing across all the good points and (and removing some ridiculous ideas in the Senate Bill) would get us a good solution.
I wish Congress could debate like you folks here at Strata-Sphere. We would have:
(1) Tight security with barriers, sensors and patrols on the borders
(2) A guest worker program for those who have been here to come forward, register, get a background check and assimilate (english spoken here folks), and payment of back taxes
(3) Heavy penalties for employers who hire undocumented workers, as well as a federal service for employers to verify that workers are documented under the guest worker program
(4) time limits on working here
(5) Back of the line for citizenship for guest workers
(6) One strike and your out for real crimes, and don’t ever come back.
6 Steps to security, controlling our border, deporting true criminals who are not welcomed here, and minimizing the problem population we need to sift through for terror risks. But nothing will come as we stand today.
Sweeet.
Well said Strata!
And I think Terrye is one of the most respected posters on various sites I visit. Although I disagree with him/her on Illegal Immigration, Terrye has always been respectful, and stern in his/her views.
Amnesty is what I have always had a problem with. The flow of Illegals has to stop. If we can keep this part of the debate intact, it will serve all of our Political purposes and help us win (assuming you are an R) this year’s elections.
Just remember, J F’n K was almost elected. Do not turn our House and Senate over to the D’s…. PLEASE!
Reason at last! Since this issue has hit the front burner, this site, which is usually controlled by reason and respect for diversity of opinions, has deterioriated into rock throwing and personal attacks. The recogition that the Senate bill or nothing position has problems as well as the House position restores my faith. The six points listed are a good start toward what needs to be done.
I’m not so sure that the issue is as dead as suggested. Hastert’s original position was that he would not allow a bill that did not reflect a majority of Senate Repubs to come to the floor, which this bill does not. His latest is that we need to take a close look at it (or words to that effect). He has lately seemed to over-react and then reverse himself–like with Jefferson. The fact that major compromise was reached in the budget supplemental recently is cause for some optomism.
Let’s begin to email our reps regarding compromise (Of course, I have both McCain and J.D, but Kyl is less entrenched).
Lots of good news for Bush lately–let’s not give up on this one.
OT–the House is debating ‘cut and run’ again today. Murtha is furious.
You’ve got a winner as far as I’m concerned, AJ. And you’ve proved the bill doesn’t have to be 600+ pages long.
And Ernie, I agree, Terrye gets a lot of undeserved grief that I have never quite understood, but the exchanges are still civil. As the Anchoress says, “decent people can disagree and still be decent people” and Terrye personifies that — in fact, this Blog personifies that. Besides, Terrye is a fellow Hoosier which makes her OK in my book, even when I disagree with her. For some reason I think Terrye is a woman — not sure why. Correct me if I’m wrong, Terrye.
AZR, I’ve already emailed AJ’s 6 steps to my Congressman and both Senators. Probably a waste of bandwidth to send something so reasonable to Evan Bayh, but I did anyway.
And Ernie, I agree, Terrye gets a lot of undeserved grief that I have never quite understood
As you may have missed, Terrye was recently quoted as favoring shooting some one. But then I’m sure you saw that post that has not yet been retracted or denied.
Retired Spook,
I have to say that this has been my position from day one. I am glad to see I finally communicated it well enough for those who resisted the idea to understand I am not soft on immigration. Moderate me? That’s a laugh.
I’m pretty much in agreement with these, except:
(1) Tight security with barriers, sensors and patrols on the borders
NO PROBLEM
(2) A guest worker program for those who have been here to come forward, register, get a background check and assimilate (english spoken here folks), and payment of back taxes
OH IF ONLY THESE WERE IN THERE without an exemption for each.
(3) Heavy penalties for employers who hire undocumented workers, as well as a federal service for employers to verify that workers are documented under the guest worker program
OH IF ONLY THERE WERE A REQUIREMENT FOR ENFORCEMENT
(4) time limits on working here
NO PROBLEM
(5) Back of the line for citizenship for guest workers
REAL BACK OF THE LINE, NOT JUST INSIDE USA LINE
(6) One strike and your out for real crimes, and don’t ever come back.
WELL, NOT EXACTLY, IN FACT ONE CRIME IS PERMITTED BEFORE YOU EVEN COME HERE.
Important note: I didn’t type in Caps to indicate shouting, just to differentiate between his and my statements
whoops, almost overlooked:
(the liberal way of full amnesty through immediate citizenship is not supported here)
In fact this is the only real intent of the current Senate Bill
I am a woman, a middle aged woman at that. And yes, I am from Indiana. I try to be civil but there are times when I am meaner than a junk yard dog.
I missed your response AJ or I would have said something earlier, and I do agree with your points above. They all make sense to me.
I understand the fear people have that anything like amnesty will just make more people come here. But I do not think that fining people is amnesty and what is more if there is strong border security and enhanced enforcement there should not be so many people coming in illegally at all.
After all, if amnesty inspires illegal entry why was there illegal entry before there was anything like amnesty? And if refraining from rounding up 11 million people and shipping them out of the country means more will come, why bother with a wall? It seems to me that hardliners are willing to either deport them or ignore them, but not require back ground checks be done on them…how does this stop them in the long term?
And FE: you know damn well that is not what I said. But the truth is you do not represent a majority in the country and it might be wise to get the best deal you can rather than assume that the rest of us are just simple minded.
And no, amnesty is not the real intention of the Senate bill, they did not need 700 pages for that. There is a lot more to that bill and the fact that you can get past that is why you are in a minority.
i hate to rain on a parade but……
most of the above were the cornerstone of the 1986 bill and the later barbara jordon report from 1990-95.
number 1 is not possible without a fence–ask border patrol people–they will tell or listen to this link.
http://www.radioblogger.com/archives/april06.html#001520
no.’s 2,3 and 4 are not possible. virtually every border state has said they will not enforce any laws that disrupt the hispanic community.
http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_hispanicpop.html
once the first law suits start rolling in, nothing will get done. it happened in 86 and that’s why the jordan commission report was ignored by the clinton administration.
no. 6 is only possible with this type of fence
http://www.weneedafence.com/images/Fence_Idea.jpg
this is the fence the minutemen are building. it’s the type of fence that the house has in mind for the 850 miles they want. talking about the house–don’t forget they tried to take out the felon status but the dems wouldn’t let them. this whole argument is a canard along with the deportation of 12 million.
if anyone has read the senate bill they will realize it has no chance in conference. back social security benefits, extended family members can come from mexico etc bringing the possible numbers to 50-100 million over the next 20 years, no fines for employers, no deportations of criminals already here, three levels of illegals, guest worker citizenship, back taxes, etc etc.
if, and it’s a big if, we get a bill it will be a fence ‘first’ followed by other proposals that will never get enacted unless they mean big, big government. personally i think with a fence, the cheapest aspect of the entire bill, immigration will grind to a halt and the marketplace will work out the rest. folks will be charged an application fee for their green card and criminal check up. after a certain date employers will be at risk for fines etc. during this time frame all the illegals will continue to go about their daily lives. meanwhile the fence will be built. it will take less than two years to build about the 1000 miles necessary–local road departments/army corp of engineers. if we are lucky the barbara jordon recommendation will be followed–no extended family will be allowed in. each applicant will make their own choice to go or stay.
forgotten in this whole debate is mexico. everytime we seduce a young mexican to come here we further condemn mexico to poverty. no country can ever progress when 20% of its fittest flee. the best thing we could do for latin america is seal the border and force a ‘critical mass’ on the corrupt criminal enterprises that run these countries. mexico has basically been run by the same mafia like 40 families for the last 400 years. they are modern slavers–selling their young for the remittances they send home. it’s no coincidence that they are against a fence! this link will give you an idea…
http://tinyurl.com/n5avy
Patrick,
Hate to rain back on yours, but as for (1) a fence is a barrier, and I used the word barrier to comprehensive of any and all types. As for 2, 3 and 4 not being possible that is just convenient giving up. Finding some person who says it cannot be done is just not a compelling argument. I have debunked the 100 million number many times here. People who use it have two problems: they a repeating BS and they are not good at math.
I agree there are fixes to be made to the Senate Bill. So make them and pass it. Doing nothing would be a crime. Doing nothinh while there is broad support for a comprehensive package would be unforgivable and doom the Reps to minority status. I understand the all or nothing argument. Nothing means political banishment for the right. If that is what you want go for it.
AJ: No one is a more faithful fan of yours than I, but you couldn’t have proved by me that this was your position all along! I’m glad I was totally wrong in that I saw you as taking a hardline Senate bill-
or-the-highway position that was as firmly entrenched as those hard right folks. My bad!
aj,
history tells me to stick to my positions. i’ve heard everything you have said before. all your hopes and aspirations i shared in 1986 and again with barbara jordon in 1990-95. the senate bill is an excuse to do nothing. pure and simple. why? because they know it all will end up in court where it will stay while 10 million turns into 30 million over the next 20 years.
i’ll stick with the heritage foundation on the 50-100 million. barbara jordon also came to the same proportionate numbers. i admit i have not read your dissection but i have read many others.
i have never said do nothing. nothing is for losers. what i said since early march is that the senate and house bills are the dance of the cranes. there will be a bill out of conference–of that i have no doubt. the final bill will be a fence first and 12 million new citizens. it will pass. if i’m lucky it will have no questions asked, no back taxes, no three levels nothing. maybe a registration fee. the only place we may differ is–without the fence everything else is the continued BS i have been listening to for the last 30 years.
And FE: you know damn well that is not what I said.
For the record, I lifted your quote exactly, here it is. Now which part of that did you not say?
Fine retire let’s just make it a law to shoot a wetback everyday and be done with it.
Left by Terrye on June 14th, 2006
There will be no fence, there will be no compromise bill. And AJ, I have never, before today, heard you admit that the Senate Bill needed any changes, as AZR said above, I’ve always read you as hard line Senate Bill. Just what changes do you think will be necessary other than the removal of blanket amnesty(not called this in the bill) but it’s a duck. (it walks like a duck, etc)
For those, especially TERRYE that thinks I’m in the minority, well, my position is, it ain’t gonna fly, and I’m sure it ain’t, and if it don’t then that would put you in the minority.
FE,
You must not have been paying attention. I have been harping on a one strike you are out provision for months. What I said is the Senate Bill has the only chance. All or nothing means nothing if the Senate Bill dies. Then Reps lose their ruling coalition. I have been 100% consistent and have not waivered once in my positions. I may not have communicated them through the fog hanging over this issue. I will admit to that. But I have been consistent.
I have been harping on a one strike you are out provision for months.
But, in fact, that provision is in the Senate bill, (with appropriate exemptions of course) so not sure how you wanting it in would be a change needed in the bill.
I believe that this would also have to be considered as inconsistent because the bill states that in the background check, you can have one felony(considered by some as One strike)with appropriate exemptions of course, and 3 misdemeanors,(considered by some as 3 more strikes) and still not be deported.
by being inconsistent, what I’m saying: if a person has committed a felony in say Mexico and it shows up on the background check, you are ok with that? but if that felony is committed in the US, deport him?
Are you okay with the background check revealing one felony and 3 misdemeanors and that still is not enough to deny that person citizenship? The bill does allow that, as you know.
AJ:
Good to be here and to see such vibrant discussion on the topic of illegal immigration. I read your post with the 6 steps and, if I could be so bold, would like to comment on some of them by adding some interesting tid-bits that you and your readers may not know. I come from a position of having enforced these laws for several years now and may be able to shed some real-world light onto the broader topics you have discussed. Forgive me if the post is lenghty, but the topic is convoluted and extremely complicated when applied, so please, bear with me.
I wish Congress could debate like you folks here at Strata-Sphere. We would have:
(1) Tight security with barriers, sensors and patrols on the borders
(2) A guest worker program for those who have been here to come forward, register, get a background check and assimilate (english spoken here folks), and payment of back taxes
(3) Heavy penalties for employers who hire undocumented workers, as well as a federal service for employers to verify that workers are documented under the guest worker program
(4) time limits on working here
(5) Back of the line for citizenship for guest workers
(6) One strike and your out for real crimes, and don’t ever come back.
These, I believe, are your 6 steps. I’ll attempt to address each one and show you some problems that have been experienced within each.
1. “Tight security with barriers, sensors and patrols on the borders.”
You won’t get any argument from me that this is a necessary step to begin to control our borders. But barriers and sensors are not the “wunderkinds” that most think they are. In San Diego, a little experiment was conducted in 1994 called “Operation Gatekeeper”. It was modeled after another operation that was launched in El Paso called “Hold the Line”. The basic premise of the op was to construct multi-level (rows) of fencing, place sensory equipment to detect entries, install cameras for real-time observation and to back it all up with enough manpower for a deterrent effect. In San Diego, the geography was such that an operation like this could be pulled off with few obstacles. All of the infrastructure was installed and once the manpower arrived, the desired outcome was achieved. San Diego sector saw a dramatic decrease in apprehensions which was then touted as a dramatic decrease in “crossings”. Essentially, if we ain’t arresting them, they ain’t crossing. You see, the whole focus was on DETERRENCE, not apprehensions. As deterrence leves were ramped up, apprehensions went down and the whole “deterrence posture” was deemed a success. Well, you only needed to go to El Centro sector 100 miles east of San Diego to realize that really nothing was accomplished as far as “keeping them out” was concerned. Within two years of it’s initiation, El Centro sector saw a RISE in their apprehension levels of nearly 400%! And this was just what they were catching! Imagine what got away! (Rough estimates indicate that the Border Patrol only apprehends about 30% of what actually crosses.) For nearly 5 years after that, agents from all over the country were detailed in to El Centro to assist with the overwhelming effects of Operation Gatekeeper. Gatekeeper was essentially a stone placed in the middle of a moving stream and all that really happened is that the “water” was diverted around, not stopped. Basically what I’m getting at is that fences, lights, cameras and sensors are good for “area controlling”. If you want to decrease the “numbers” in a given area to promote the “illusion” of security, strategically placed infrastructure will do the job. But buyer beware, it historically has done nothing towards gaining true “operational control” of our entire border. Don’t believe me? Check this out. At the inception of Gatekeeper, the estimated number of illegals in the country was probably somewhere around 5 to 6 million. Since then, and many other operations like gatekeeper, that number has grown to the disputed 11 to 20 million. So much for fences, lights and cameras. Jeez, all we were really missing was “action”.
2. “A guest worker program for those who have been here to come forward, register, get a background check and assimilate (english spoken here folks), and payment of back taxes ”
OK. People talking about this need to understand the difference between “guest worker” and “path to citizenship” as it relates to immigration status. These words are so lazily thrown around in the media and in Congress, that it’s no wonder everyone is so confused. A true guest worker will have the status of a non-immigrant. A non-immigrant is someone who has no intention of abandoning their foreign residence and is only looking to come to America for a limited period of time to work, study, visit, perform, etc. Currently there are 50-something different classes of non-immigrants that cover nearly every conceivable reason for entering the US. Several of the 50-something classes are specifically designated to those who want to work. Of these, there are three specific classes that get the most applicants. Those are the H1-B, H2-A and H2-B classes. H1-B’s are specifically designated for foreign nurses who come to America to work as a nurse. Since the US is always short on nurses, this category was designed for them. H2-A’s are for generally unskilled folks who ONLY want a job in the agriculture industry. H2-B’s are for folks who are specifically skilled in something other than agriculture, such as wraught iron work or stained glass bending. (No kidding, these are the examples used in the LAW, look it up!) Most all other types of work related non-immigrant visas are left for professionals in white collar industry and carry specific and difficult petition regulations to even qualify for them. The bottom line is that all of these folks are here temporarily and eventually must return home. Most that apply for these visas DO go back. But, a sneaky little provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act allows for ALL OF THESE so-called non-immigrants to adjust their status to that of an immigrant. That provision can be found in Section 245(i) of the INA. In fact, this provision applies to ALL classes of non-immigrants except three. Now, what does it mean to be an immigrant. Well, basically it means that your intention is to permanently reside in the US and to call it your home, abandoning all things foreign of monetary value (i.e. homes, job, cars, etc.). When politicans and pundits speak about a “path to citizenship” they are speaking of these folks. Why? Because it is ONLY these people who are eligible for the “green card”, which is an immigrants’ ONLY ticket to US citizenship. Without ever having been the possessor of a green card, one will never be eligible to naturalize. So, when speaking about a temporary guest worker program, at first blush, it would appear that eventually EVERYONE, under current law, would have the option to become an IMMIGRANT, which could lead to citzenship. This is where the discussion must take a dramatic turn.
Did you know that persons granted permanent residence ARE NOT required to EVER apply for naturalization (i.e. US citizenship)?
In fact, a large percentage of these so-called “US citizen wanna-be’s” die with their green cards in their back pockets. The ONLY reason why the US should EVER grant someone a green card should be because of their affirmation that within a specified period of time, they will be REQUIRED to naturalize as a US citizen. Period. Until provisions are built into the law that limit the amount of time a person may be in green card status, it will be impossible to seperate those who truly wish permanent residence and citizenship from those who only want the economic benefit of a job in the US.
Your guest worker program IS a much needed part of the whole picture. The vast majority of persons wishing to come to the US do so only for the economic benefit. And they are coming, no matter what laws we pass. A guest worker program allows us to offer an alternative to illegal entry and gives us a better idea of who’s here. But each one of these persons should be thoroughly screened, not only for criminal or terrorist affiliation, but for their intentions in coming. They should be made to live for several years as a non-immigrant and prove that they have what it takes to qualify for a path to citizenship. That bar should rightfully be placed very high. Those who qualify and agree to naturalize should be afforded the chance. Those who don’t, should never be allowed to claim the status of “permanent resident”. The problem with the current legislation is that it somehow equates “time in country” to ” the desire to be an American”. This is old-school thinking and antiquated ideaology. Raising the bar for those we give a green card while leaving all the others as “temporary occupiers” is a just and humane way of addressing the problem. Besides, the alien only has him or herself to blame for their position. If you want to be a permanent resident, PROVE IT, and we’ll see. If not, no sweat, we’ll still let you come (because you’re gonna be here anyway) but at least we’ll have an idea of who you are and when it’ll be time for you to leave.
The problem is that we, the number one economic superpower on the globe, share a back yard with a woefully corrupt, unclassed and poorly administrated third-world country. Yea, Mexico has tons of natural resources, hard-working people and a “democratic” (hee-hee) form of government. But all that means NOTHING when it’s all squandered to corrupt politicians owned by ruthless cartels and government-run corporations (PEMEX, etc.). Put the ose two situations together and what do you get. A mass exodus surpassing biblical proportions from the third world to the first. And believe me, a line in the sand is just that and no amount of fencing, sensors or people will stop that flow.
Liken it to this analogy: If you have a cut on your knee, would you place the band-aid on your shin to stop the bleeding? Mexico is the source of the blood flow and our border is the “shin” between our distinctly different nations.
3. “Heavy penalties for employers who hire undocumented workers, as well as a federal service for employers to verify that workers are documented under the guest worker program”
No problems or comments about this one. An absolute MUST for any of this to work. The only phrase I would put in there would be “mandatory” as far as the program goes. It must not be optional if you are going to hire. The program must be utilized for ALL potential hirees, not just those claiming to be guest workers. Base it within the Social security network and ALL emplyees can be verified through their VALID SSN. It would be too easy for an illegal English-speaking Frenchman to say he was a US citizen and be exempted from the dearch. ALL employees must have valid, verifiable SSN’s to be hired, and this includes US citizens.
4. “time limits on working here”
Again, no issue. But interior enforcement policies should be in place that allow authorized officials to monitor our “non-immigrant” guests’ work histories and enable them to notify these folks that the time is approaching to either renew, adjust or pack up and get out. Secondly, resources need to be preemptively hired and in place to have effective enforcement. This will mean a marketed increase in available positions either within DHS or the DOL. You can have all the laws you want, if the personnel aren’t there to enforce it, it means nothing.
5. “Back of the line for citizenship for guest workers”
Re-read my response to number 2 for a starting point. Remember, ther IS NO citizenship for those who qualify ONLY for guest worker status. You must first qualify for “immigrant” status and then and only then, after several years of proving your worthiness, will you be able to naturalize. Again, upon acceptance of your green card, it will be understood that you WILL naturalize upon completion of the requirements for naturalization. Should you either (a) not complete the requirements or (b) choose not to naturalize, you will be immediately stripped of your residency and summarily returned to non-immigrant status. (It should be noted that many of these folks will make good-faith efforts to comply, but for various reasons, will be unable to qualify. Adjudicators must take into consideration a plethora of variables and circumstances when passing judgement. Generally, only those who flatly refuse to naturalize within the time frame should be summarily deported, no questions asked, regardless of their personal situation. They must be reminded that they signed an affirmation of their intention to become a US citizen when the time came and that this was the sole reason they were granted permanent resident status to begin with. If they had any doubts, they should have remained temporary at the beginning.)
6. “One strike and your out for real crimes, and don’t ever come back.”
Well, what is a “real crime”? Current immigration law may help you on this one. Have you ever heard of a CIMT? A CIMT is a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude. The are murder, rape, theft, forgery, arson, bribery, prostitution, extortion and burgulary. These are some of the most morally and economically heinous crimes under our current codes. A conviction in any one of these will, in most cases, get you deported for a minimum of 20 years. The current problem exists in the pendulistic swing of our various judicial circuits. “Activist” judges in certain circuts view cases quite differently from those in others. Texas’ fifth circuit is notoriously hard on immigrant defendants while California’s ninth is overtly lenient. Until immigration law is appropriately bridged to penal law, variations will continue to exist. An immigrant must be convicted and sentenced to felonious time for these offenses to trigger deportation proceedings. This is the first obstacle. Once overcome, Immiration courts and the Bureau of Immigration Appeals must be aligned if we ever expect to achieve a modicum of what the law intends. Simply put, judicial reform is the topic of a wholly different discussion and is probably better left for “legal scholars” to wrangle out. But the “idea” is sound in its intent and meaning. When Congress “writes” the statute it must be cognizant enough to place a “construction” statute to follow to give judicial officers a “sense of the Congress” when applying the rule. This will take concerted and unified “political will” from all members of Congress, something currently I think is nearly impossible to get, given the polarization that exists within the body as a whole. Nonetheless, it will be necessary to produce the desired outcome.
AJ (and other readers), I encourage you to go to my blog at http://www.realimmigration.blogspot.com and read more about what I have said. My blog is dedicated entirely to immigration so those interested will find some really eye-opening info on the subject. I am jaded because of my experience. But I’m not a pundit. I have lived this topic for 10+ years. It’s really good to see others taking a heartfelt interest in it. It’s an important topic whose time has truly been “a long time comin'”. Thanks for reading.
MIGRASTEW
Migrastew,
Thanks so much for providing your thoughts and all your detailed knowledge. I can see you understand the guest worker-immigration issue very well since you understand the work visas, greencard, citizenship subjects. I used to run a small US subsidiary for a UK firm and deal with the UK and EU workers here in the US on work Visas. I will visit your site and please come back here as well.
I enjoyed the insight on the barrier/fence as well. There is a point of diminishing return with infrastructure and the entire thing is a waste if they continue with catch and release in the interior. It just proves this is not s simple problem with simple solutions that will work.
Migrastew
I too have read your analysis of the situation, thanks so much for supporting the view that is is pretty much a hopeless situation.
1. So the Answer to No. 1 is throw up our hands and give up. I will concede that if I want to fence in a herd of cows on ten acres and I put up 10 feet of fence on each side, I may not be successful. On the other hand if I fence in ALL 10 acres, my experience says I will be so close to 100% that the difference would be insignifcant.
2, But, a sneaky little provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act allows for ALL OF THESE so-called non-immigrants to adjust their status to that of an immigrant.
What a layman might call an “exemption” and it applies to who?
In fact, this provision applies to ALL classes of non-immigrants except three.
And what does that mean?
So, when speaking about a temporary guest worker program, at first blush, it would appear that eventually EVERYONE, under current law, would have the option to become an IMMIGRANT, which could lead to citzenship.
The problem with the current legislation is that it somehow equates “time in country†to †the desire to be an Americanâ€
3.The only phrase I would put in there would be “mandatory†as far as the program goes. It must not be optional if you are going to hire.
Oh noo, you mean it’s not “mandatory” it’s only optional, must be some more of those pesky “exemptions”
4. But interior enforcement policies should be in place that allow authorized officials to monitor our “non-immigrant†guests’
Oh noo, no “provisions” for enforcement. Hmmm no exemptions here, just “exceptions”
5 you will be immediately stripped of your residency and summarily returned to non-immigrant status.
Buttt, NOT deported, and those that were waiting outside the US before you even got here, will still be out there waiting.
Adjudicators must take into consideration a plethora of variables and circumstances when passing judgement.
What? Oh nooo, some more of those “exemptions” gosh will it never end?
6. This will take concerted and unified “political will†from all members of Congress, something currently I think is nearly impossible to get,
What? you mean you don’t think we have strong willed, determined politicians that are vitally concerned with the well being of our country, Nooo! for shame.
Besides, we’re already gonna not even blink when we do the background check and find they’ve already been convicted of 1 felony and 3 misdemeanors, So what’s one more felony or two among friends
I too, as AJ said, ” I can see you understand the guest worker-immigration issue very well” and your analysis seems to indicate that there is not a chance in hell that the Senate bill will do anything at all, except insure all the illegal immigrants will be able to remain in the US as long as they want to regardless of what some would like us to believe.
FE:
Let me attempt to give you a little more detail on the subjects you wrote about. I’ll follow the same format that I did for my previous post.
“1. So the Answer to No. 1 is throw up our hands and give up. I will concede that if I want to fence in a herd of cows on ten acres and I put up 10 feet of fence on each side, I may not be successful. On the other hand if I fence in ALL 10 acres, my experience says I will be so close to 100% that the difference would be insignifcant.”
FE, I sincerely hope you are not suggesting that “fencing” the ENTIRE SW border is an actual option? Like I stated in my previous post, none of that works to DETER or PREVENT illegal entries if you don’t have the manpower to back it up. San Diego, El Paso, Douglas, AZ, Calexico, CA, etc. have ONLY been successful “fence stories” because the Border Patrol hired and stationed hundreds of agents in those areas that were fenced. Running a fence through an area like Sanderson, TX would simply be a waste of money. Why? Well, for one, have you ever been to Sanderson, TX? It’s a uber-remote town in the middle of BFE that has it’s nearest food store over 100 miles away. More importantly, the nearest hospital able to handle anything remotely life-threatening is over 200 miles away. The station currently operates with less than 20 sworn personnel and is responsible for hundreds of miles of border. Remember, San Diego, EL Paso, Calexico, etc are relatively “normal” towns and provide agents with a LIFE after work. Those folks down in Sanderson are a rare breed. In fact, that station used to be what we call a “hardship” posting. Agents assigned there were provided with government housing that they paid a tiny price for every month ($50.00). After three years of duty in HELL, agents were eligible to transfer “back to reality” with a choice of 5 wish list stations. I have a good friend who was there for 5 years, got his transfer and is now in San Angelo, TX livin’ the good life. Fact is, we could hire a million agentys and still not have enough to back up a 1500 border fence to do the fence justice. My point is that fences do NOT stop desperate, economically downtrodden, highly motivated border crossers. They never have and never will. Even where I’m at right now, I have repeatedly seen the same illegal alien 5 out of six days in a row. I know this guy on a first name basis because of his tenacity! And look, don’t believe the hype that folks are “deported” when they’re sent back to Mexico after getting caught. This is NOT deportation. It’s an administrative function called voluntary return. Deportation is a purely legal term that only exists after due process. The VR is, unfortunately, a necessary evil because there aren’t enough courts and judges, detention space and money to arrest, feed, prosecute, convict, incarcerate, and feed and feed again and ultimately deport, all 6-8 million that we encounter every year. It’s kinda like the speeding ticket. You’re given the opportunity to pay the fine to fore-go the court appearance. You don’t go to jail, nothing. Same with the arrestees. They can waive their legal right to a trial by admitting their guilt and voluntarily return to from whence they came (as long as they are Mexican. OTM’s are a COMPLETELY different story!). But I digress…the point is fences. As I see it, a safety valve for the border IS a guest worker program. Basically, give them a legal way to come and work and, viola, you effectively cut down on the number of ILLEGAL entries. (Well, at least that’s the theory. One, I will say, that has yet to be tried.) With less folks crossing illegally, the need for a monolithic creation able to be seen from space is drastically reduced. The IRCA (amnesty) reforms of 1986 didn’t offer anything like this. Those laws essentially “legalized” only those illegally in country since 1982. It offered NOTHING to those still out of country and wanting to come (except the hope for another amnesty!) A well-administered guest worker program WOULD reduce the number of illegal entries, if and only if, serious ideological changes are made further up in the process. Besides, cows are generally stupid animals while aliens and smugglers are not. Recent reports have shown that even WITH fencing, technology and infrastructure, apprehensions are once again on the rise. It’s not throwing up my hands and giving up FE, it’s thinking outside the box. You know, new direction stuff. The old -school thought patters for security are simply not working. There needs to be fresh vistas on this one. A guest worker plan is a positive step down that unexplored path.
“2, But, a sneaky little provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act allows for ALL OF THESE so-called non-immigrants to adjust their status to that of an immigrant.
What a layman might call an “exemption†and it applies to who?”
No, FE, this is not an exemption. It is a fundamental ideology written into the law. It’s “sneaky” because it ASSUMES that all non-immigrants, if they spend enough time here, want to adjust to a permanent resident. This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Why should “time” equate to “desire”? I don’t care if you have spent 30 years in the US as a non-immigrant, if you are not willing to to take a dramatically different path in your “immigrant oddyssey”, you should not be considered for permanent residency. I am saying that a radical new emphasis needs to be placed on those wishing to apply for green cards. Part of that new emphasis needs to begin with a limit on how long you may remain a green card holder before you MUST naturalize. Like I said, there is currently no limit to how long you can have the card. Permanent residents (immigrants) enjoy a world of different rights as compared to their non-immigrant brothers and sisters. We, as a sovereign nation, should make THAT the focus, not by changing the RIGHTS but by changing the STANDARD one is held to in order to enjoy them. Again, new thinking.
“In fact, this provision applies to ALL classes of non-immigrants except three.
And what does that mean?”
Well, to put a fine point on it, there are currently only three classes of non-immigrants who are ineligible to adjust status, They are C-class non-immigrants, D-class non-immigrants and K-class non-immigrants. Here is you immigration law class for the day:
C-class non-imm’s are aliens in “transit” through the US. Ex. George is a businessman from Germany who is travelling to Mexico to close a deal. George can’t get a direct flight from Hamburg to Mexico City, so he utilizes NY’s JFK as a transfer point. Well, George needs a visa that is specific to his “intent” on being in the US. Since he’ll arrive at JFK, he’ll definitely be in the US. But since he has no “intention” of doing anything here, the State department issues him a C-visa. This visa allows him to be legally admitted to the US for a period of up to 29 days to make his transition flight to Mexico City. Now, I know you are saying, “Why 29 days?! It doesn’t take 29 days to change planes!” Right you are! The admitting inspector can give him any timeframe UP TO 29 days, depending on what the circumstances are. It could be 1 day, it could be 26 days. But the point is that George’s “intent” doesn’t allow him any wiggle room and therefore doesn’t qualify him for adjustment rights.
D-class non-imms are folks who work on commercial and public forms of international conveyance (i.e. ships and airplanes). These folks’ “intent” for being present in the US is to work on the plane or ship that eventually will return foreign. Ex. Mary works for Lufthansa airlines. She is a stewardess and regularly flies the Frankfurt to DC route. Each time Mary lands in the DC, she presents her D visa to the inspector. Mary, because of her brief stay in the US and her intent to re-board her plane to get home to Hans and Franz, is not qualified for an adjustment of her D status.
K-class visas are specifically for fiances or fiancees of US citizens who were engaged outside of the US but want to get married within. Now, this one is a little confusing. As you can see, the State department issues visas solely based on a persons INTENT for entering the US. Since intent is everything and fiances are specifically coming to get married, there had to be a visa classification just for them. Here’s the example: Mikele, a Botswannian beauty pageant winner, met Ed, a US citizen in Botswanna while Ed was there judging the pageant. Ed and Mikele fell immediately in love and on their third date, Ed proposed with a 5 carat diamond engagement ring. Mikele had been to the US several times before using her visitors visa, but now, plans to return to the US with Ed and get married in Ed’s hometown of Milford, Conn. Because Mikele’s “INTENT” on coming to the US is to get married, she no longer qualifies, on this trip at least, to use her visitors visa. Why? Because it’s not her INTENT to visit and leave, it’s her intent to marry and stay. So, Ed and Mikele travel to the US consulate in Botswanna and apply for a K visa. All goes well and Mikele is granted the K visa. The visa carries very strict regulations though. One of them is that it is only good for 90 days. Within that time frame, Ed and Mikele MUST marry, consumate the matrimony and start adjustment proceedings. See, she is entering the US as an “intending immigrant” but doesn’t qualify for an immigrant visa. Why? Because she isn’t married yet! So the only remedy for her situation is the time-constrained K visa which will allow her LEGAL presence in the US while the final arrangements are made for the marriage that will entitle her to her intended immigrant status. The paradoxical part about this visa is that she can’t adjust to anything else BUT an immigrant.
It should be noted that none of these non-immigrants can adjust their status to a different non-immigrant status either. These three have VERY SPECIFIC reasons for being present in the US.
Hope that clears up your question.
“3.The only phrase I would put in there would be “mandatory†as far as the program goes. It must not be optional if you are going to hire.
Oh noo, you mean it’s not “mandatory†it’s only optional, must be some more of those pesky “exemptions†”
Again FE, that is not an exemption. When Congress passed the IRCA, there was no truly operational system in place for employers to check SSN validity. Shortly thereafter, the Basic Pilot Program was implemented, but, in their infinite wisdom, Congress didn’t make it’s use mandatory for all employers. Because we have ex post facto rules in our judicial system, it would have been a hard sell to MAKE employers use something relating to the passage of a law that didn’t exist when the law was passed. You know, the whole “Constitution” thing and all. Now that the system is in place and functioning exemplary, there’s no good reason NOT to make it mandatory. That’s all I was saying.
“4. But interior enforcement policies should be in place that allow authorized officials to monitor our “non-immigrant†guests’
Oh noo, no “provisions†for enforcement. Hmmm no exemptions here, just “exceptions†”
This is not so much an “exception” as it is a “perception”. Look, the INS, for years, has been averse to true interior enforcement. Not because it isn’t effective, but because it’s TOO effective. Where I live, the powerful Hispanic lobby groups and the rich, superstar movie moguls don’t want Jose the gardener and Maria the house cleaner rounded up by Joe Border Patrol. Google “interior immigration enforcement” sometime and I’m sure you’ll come across a situation that happened last year in Temecula, CA. Border Patrol agents were rounding illegals up by the van-load and it was all brought to a screaming halt by the uppity-up’s in DC. Why? Well, I’ve been asking myself that question for years and still can’t come up with a good answer. The boys in DC will tell you that interior enforcement is the job of ICE, not the Border Patrol. But in the same breath, they’ll tell you that funding for massive increases in ICE manpower to roam the interior is not in the picture. Truly a paradox. But for any of this to work, we have to be able to enforce the laws within our borders, not just AT them. I think on this point we both agree ans I’ll leave it at that.
“5 you will be immediately stripped of your residency and summarily returned to non-immigrant status.
Buttt, NOT deported, and those that were waiting outside the US before you even got here, will still be out there waiting.
Adjudicators must take into consideration a plethora of variables and circumstances when passing judgement.
What? Oh nooo, some more of those “exemptions†gosh will it never end?”
You know, I struggled with this one. What it ultimately came down to is that immigration law is not a “one size fits all” when it comes to punishment. To me, it comes down to a title. I’m proud to be called an American and I think it ONLY means something when the person who has that title truly understands the meaning. In my plan, I don’t think it necessary for everyone who lives in this country to be desirous of the title. In fact, I think it would be national suicide for us to expect that of all who enter. Being an American is something anyone can outwardly fake convincingly. Because of that, I feel the title should only be bestowed upon those who truly live it spiritually. Now those are pretty lofty words for something that is granted to a person solely based on where they are born. Believe me, I know that. But there are ways of dealing with that issue that don’t involve amending the Constitution. However, we do have a modicum of say-so over those who we allow into our borders. I believe that there is a moment to be seized here and I write in the hopes that others will see it and seize it as well while holding onto the standards that make us the great and welcoming nation we are. Hence, summarily DEPORTING someone would be extreme under that ideology. But returning them to what THEY truly represent is, well…logical and just in all cases. Someone who has built a life for themselves in the US is a good first step towards citizenship, but it’s not the whole enchilada. But stripping all of that away and shipping them home is fundamentally saying that none of those redeeming qualities has any merit whatsoever. There is a fine-line compromise and that compromise is non-immigrant status. Again, it’s not an exemption but rather an honest recognition.
“6. This will take concerted and unified “political will†from all members of Congress, something currently I think is nearly impossible to get,
What? you mean you don’t think we have strong willed, determined politicians that are vitally concerned with the well being of our country, Nooo! for shame.”
They are the true dregs of our society, right? Well, we have a remedy. It’s called the vote. I have not voted along the two-party lines for several years now. I still vote, but I vote my conscience. I rabidly support and promote candidates based on their platforms, not their party. America needs to do their part, educate themselves and vote what they feel. If you feel that the Republican has the right answers, vote for them. If it’s a Democrat, do the same. But thinking independently regardless of party affiliation is, to me, the proof in being truly informed and capable of making a truly informed choice. I’m doing my part, I hope.
FE, enforcement is not the end game in this issue. It never has been and never will be. Were not simply dealing with car thieves who leave home every night with bad and evil intentions. I can say this because of what I do and the direct daily interaction I have with these people. I am, however, not a sympathizer. Our country’s success as a nation has been forged on the rule of law, and I fully support that premise. But it is that very rule of law within this context that must be viewed through a different lens. Hardliners like to say that lens you’re looking through, Migrastew, is a rose colored one at best. Well, if that were the case, I surely wouldn’t be calling for new ways of looking at the problem while maintaining (and in some cases upping) the standards by which we judge our visitors and ourselves. Give my lens any color you want, but since I’m the one who’s looking through them, take my word when I say they appear quite clear to me.
MIGRASTEW