IMMIGRATION: A VIEW FROM THE BASIN
Been involved in some spirited discussions about what should be in an immigration reform package. Here's my non-exhaustive list:
A. Mother of all Walls on our southwestern border, supported by a properly manned, SWAT capable mobile high-tech enforcement group;
B. Every County's Sheriff's Dept. should have one fully cross-designated, federally funded ICE deputy (who would also do regular policing in low-volume counties) and he would be the custodian for arrested illegals. He would shepherd them right up until deportation. (Note: there would have to be a formula for how to apportion ICE-cross designees in large departments);
C. Any illegal who wanted to be considered for a temporary work permit and a multi-step process to achieve citizenship would have to do walk-in registration at a designated site. inability to establish identity, prior identity theft or commission of any crimes involving deceit or dishonesty would be a disqualifier but recognizance would be allowed while out-processing took place. Any crimes, anywhere, involving bodily harm or hard drug use would be disqualifier and there would be a rebuttable presumption against recognizance pending deport (I think I would include DUI in here as well but I haven't really given it mature thought).;
D. There would be a long integration to citizenship process involving several stages of permits, classes, cash payments, no stupid touchdown in COO and a declining tax surcharge for the first ten years of citizenship (10,10,9,9,8,8,7,7,6,5). Faiure to complete any part of it in the time prescribed by law is an absolute disqualifier;
E. Any employer who uses an unregistered illegal (strict liability, no defense except a registration card) may not deduct any pay for that illegal from gross in computing net income for state or federal taxes (in addition to criminal penalties, if he's prosecuted).
F. Anybody of Natural Birth in the USA is a citizen and enjoys all the rights, privileges and emoluments of that citizenship. No state shall deny a Natural Birth Citizen any benefit provided to any other eligible citizen because that Natural Birth Citizen was the product of one or more illegals; Contrariwise, no Immigration Administrative Judge, may consider the existence of a Natural Birth Minor Child Citizen in fixing bond or making the determination to deport.
G. Local laws prohibiting renting to illegals would be repealed as a matter of federal preemption. All landlords to illegals would be required to register before doing business as a landlord and be required to simply report the names of their principal tenants and make sure they are registered under the round-up registration. Anybody else who lives there would be up to the lessee and not the responsibility of the landlord. Failure to register as a landlord or to the required tenant info would be a federal misdemeanor and possibly disqualify the landlord as a lessor to transitional illegals.
There's more but I'm out of time for now.
posted by UMRBlog @ 19:51
37 comments
37 Comments:
Where I'm from they call that amnesty.
0913,
And your next sentence would be: "I oppose all forms of amnesty."
That is a perfectly valid view and I extend respect for it. There's nothing magical about the name. You would be right that any kind of integration program, in effect, rewards illegal behavior. That's a hell of a negative.
For myself, after a lot of research and soul-searching (particularly about the terrorism aspect of this), I find the most practical solution, the one that acknowledges our own logistic and financial limitations to my own take on gradually indentured servitude leading to citizenship.
You can call it amnesty and that's not wrong. You can hate it and that's not wrong. You don't even have any obligation to propose another viable solution because you didn't create the problem. I don't blame you at all for your principled objection to any form of amnesty or integration. I just think mass apprehension and deportation is unattainable. And, yes, that's a hell of a poor way to make policy.
TYFCB
Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is...well you know, insane. Not doing something because it's too hard eventually leads to sitting in your parents basement eating, you guessed it, cheetos.
It's the same old song. Just be compassionate and reasonable, my fellow Americans, and grant amnesty to the 12-20 million invaders colonizing us, and, you guessed it, we'll secure the borders and get our house in order. There is another viable solution rather than believing Ted Kennedy again.
1012,
Fair points all and well made. In making them, however, it seems to me you assume the burden of explaining how you would fund and staff the massive undertaking of apprehension, detention and deporting the 12-20M to whom you make reference.
I particlarly like your word "colonizing" because in a reverse kind of way, that is what is going on. It's a good word picture.
TYFCB
There are two truths here. First, if ancient Egyptians could build the pyramids, if ancient Chinese constructed the Great Wall, we can deport any number of invaders and keep them out.
The second truth is that we don't have to.
The answer is - and these ideas aren't original - we can get illegal aliens to deport themselves. All we need understand is that man operates based on incentive, on reward and consequence, and devise policy accordingly. I now propose a foolproof five-point plan that would put an end to the invasion of America.
1. Enact laws ensuring that employers who hire illegals will be punished harshly enough to deter the behavior; this will take the illegals' jobs away.
2. Enact laws prohibiting illegals from receiving any government benefits.
3. Eliminate the standard that confers citizenship on children born to illegals on our soil.
These three measures alone will eliminate the incentive to be here, causing most to return to where they belong. But this is just the removal of the carrot; now we need application of the stick.
4. Enact a law stating that any alien in violation of our laws caught on our soil beyond a certain date will be subject to severe criminal penalties.
5. Enact a law stating that, in addition, if they are found in the US after that time, they will forevermore be prohibited from entering our nation.
1845,
I have long since signed on to the "Great Wall" thing and added we need the requisite parallel Special Paramilitary Units.
Your argument against Natural Birth, to its logical extension would mean that Indians and maybe eskimos and Aleuts would be the only Americans.
The Voluntary Reverse Immigration theory has been rattling around a long time. Most folks still prefer indoor plumbing.
TYFCB
No idea what you mean re natural birth and plumbing. This plan will work, yours will not.
An old saying states, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." In 1965, Ted Kennedy and his enablers sold us a culture-rending immigration reform act. When lobbying for the bill, Kennedy said that America wouldn't be flooded with a million immigrants a year and the demographic composition of the country would not change. Both those assertions proved untrue. In 1986, Ted Kennedy and others promised that if we would just grant amnesty to the 3.4 million invaders on our soil, the borders would be secured and illegal immigration halted. This proved untrue.
I don't know, would you buy a used immigration idea from these men? What do you say about being fooled a third time?
The immigration bill before the Senate, SB-1348, is a sham. The three million invaders in 1986 have become 12-20 million today and, if we repeat the mistakes of the past, will metastasize into perhaps forty million next time. Of course, by then our sense of national identity will be so eroded that we may not even call them illegal anymore.
One frailty of man is that he is very adept at finding excuses to justify laziness and irresponsibility.
If "Natural Birth" doesn't make a citizen, How did we get our first citizens? If you don't get the point, it's because you don't want to get it.
The prior bills are not comparable. No wall, no paramilitary force.
Doesn't help your argument to call Teddy names. The bills are either comparable or they're not. They're not.
Keep in mind, I'm not calling this a great option. Given where we are right now, I could live with it.
If somebody could show the money and the will to do mass deportation, I could live with that, too.
TYFCB
1132
No need to be smart ass, my plan is from this point forward. Try to pay attention.
1134
How's that 700 mile wall coming? Last count about 2 miles of it are complete. You're smart enough to know, it ain't gonna happen and neither is any stepped up border enforcement, never does after the amnesty. At least be honest why the you and the Dems want them to havethe amnesty.
What name did I call Teddy (D-runk)
Kennedy?
As far as the money goes understand that these measures will so greatly reduce the number of illegals (my guess is by 90%) that taking legal action against the lawbreakers who remain will simply be a matter of eliminating a few stragglers.
The beauty of this plan is that it eliminates another excuse: "We'll never stop illegals from coming here anyway." Once America has been transformed from a big carrot into a big stick, they'll stop picking on our vegetable. Border enforcement would still be necessary, but only for the purposes of keeping true miscreants out, people such as terrorists and criminal gangs.
There are no jobs Americans won't do, there are only wages Americans won't work for. The law of supply and demand informs that flooding an economic system with great numbers of low-wage workers causes their value to decrease. If you purge the system of them, however, businesses won't go belly-up for want of labor. They will simply offer what the remaining, more valuable workers are now worth. When the cost of labor exceeds that of mechanization, we'll go the latter route.
Try not to be so condescending when you make your point, it's irritating as hell.
1224,
I have no idea how many anon's I have floating around in here. I don't do ip checks. Thus, don't know how many of these offerings are yours.
By clear implication, you called Kennedy deceitful (fool me...etc.).
I don't have any motive to support anything. In fact, from a homeland security perspective. I'd rather have all the guys with many names and wrong names outta here. Anyway, I have no idea what you mean when you talk about, "be honest...etc." We have a hell of a social impact going on in this country and it needs to be addressed.
You talk about your plan being "from this point forward.." I think it was you who was talking about 1965 and 1986. It damn sure wasn't me.
Here's the essential problem with economically coerced reverse immigration. The standard of living here is so much better, even for someone left to hustle, than in Mexico or Ecuador or Nicaragua that most folks who have been here awhile are loathe to go back (Heck, the same thing was true with the Irish, of all people in the 70's and 80's and it was a lot nicer there.). The second piece of that puzzle is that there is a huge barter/OTR economy in this country and particularly in the great southwest. I know one American city where there is a whole subculture of folks who literally don't need money because they trade in barter credits and essentially have their own monetary system about which the IRS and Treasurery are not informed. One complete Barter system was recently dismantled in LA as a tax dodge scheme. As you probably know, there is an entire banking system, based upon trust that operates in parallel with the formal (Federal Reserve Type) banking channels. In short the idea you can starve the Latino illegals outta here is a fairy tale.
BTW, you really don't have to go all the way to the sunbelt to find cashless economies and OTR banking. If you know where to look, you can go right up the Illinois River and watch it work. You can also find pockets on the Rock River, if you look hard enough and speak decent Spanish.
Shutting down conventional employers will just drive these folks farther underground.
Ya know, just to put all our cards on the table, that the wall's not near done misses the point of my earlier argument. There was no legislation for a deterrent system when the earlier bills passed. That is not the case now. When the bill passed to create "Star Wars" there was no working missile intercept system. Doesn't mean it was a bad idea or that is was dishonest to support it. It is no scoop that there is usually a lag between legislation and completion.
BTW, I agree with anon 1845's points four and five.
1845 couldn't be more wrong on Natural Birth, though. This is a country of refuge and a country of universal public education. We nurture children. We're big enough and enlightened enough to extend our hands to children who bear no responsibility for anything nefarious their parents my have done.
Take your "try to pay attention" and stick it in your BVD's. Just because I don't expect your admittedly warmed over solutions as some kind of aggregate masterstroke doesn't mean I'm having any difficulty understanding them. I promise you, I'll stop you when you get going too fast for me.
I didn't mean to be condescending but, in light of this last post, I guess I'm not sorry.
Here's where we stand. I like Employer pressure. What do you think I put in the non-deductibility provision for? I like your provisions four and five (If you're the same anon all these times--here's an idea: you could use a handle and it could even be the same one every time. That way you could take credit for your swell thoughts.) But you obviously think this is simple and anyone who disagrees with you is just not being honest about their motives. I'm sure you're incorrect about point one and I believe your wrong, as a general proposition about point two.
I think your central premise (self-actuated reverse immigration can be created legislatively) is wrong. If that's condescending, sobeit. It usually doesn't advance a policy discussion much to impugne anyone else's motives. So I'm condescending and you're intolerant and a self-professed mind reader. I can live iwth that.
TYFCB
Ted Kennedy is not deceitful... he's a big fat, semi-retarded manslaughtering child of privilege. His filthy, sweaty pig-faced, cream cheese filled heart and tiny walnut brain are not capable of deceit.
1048,
And that advances exactly what material proposition in the immigration policy debate?
God will judge us all in moral terms someday. Our RW obligation is to make policy decisions which advance society. You have something along those lines or are you just another hater?
TYFCB
Well, I remember 1988 when amnisty was to end all these problems. A fence was promised them also - never built. I have a friend who was retired from the WP. He was bought back to handle the illegal immigrants and their work cards. It went on forever. As he said. "He made a second career with amnisty." I am against it this time. We may not be able to deport all twelve million, but we can give it our best shot. Like putting a man in space. The birthright issue is no longer applicable to this country. We can not assissmilate the world that wants to come to America.
Spell Check 1319,
On the mass deportation, the burden's on you to describe where the money and staffing will come from to accomplish it. How many more enforcement officials will it take? How many more vehicles? How many more holding facilities? How many more ALJ's, prosecutors?
I'm not saying you're wrong in your approach, but you can't just fold your arms and say "this is the way I want it, so it'll happen." The current structure won't support it. How big a tax increase do you wanna pay to enforce your principles?
Don't understand at all how your opposition to natural birth citizenship fits into your theory. If we're going to do strict enforcement, what's the problem with the odd natural birth. I'm sure you know from your deep study of "amnisty" that some of our great contributing citizens were natural birth citizens.
I think your recollection of any provision for a fence anyplace but just west of Juarez is incorrect.
TYFCB
UMR I though the fence was for the whole border. I just Juarez, sorry about that. Taxing is fine with me - as the prison population is just growing larger , we can use the facilities for more jails and prisions. We are going to need to build them anyway. I do not see anything wrong with denying citizenship to babies, whose parents do not have citizenship. Sorry about the spellin, but no spell check for use.
How is it that you, a city attorney in Quincy, IL, know about these OTR societies, and the feds don't?
This comment has been removed by the author.
1319,
That came off heavier than I intended. You're welcome here anytime. Just expect to be asked to defend your ideas.
TYFCB
1821,
On reflection, there is merit to what you say. I don't want to discourage participation. My apology is above.
Appreciate the view on natural birth.
1821,
Since Ancient Greece, democratic thinkers have written extensively that the only way a representative society works is for the populace to let legislators know how they feel (i.e. GRT or not GRT).
The logical extension of your argument is we're just supposed to go vote for somebody every two years based upon some vague personal impression. I stand by what I said. Citizens have some obligation besides just to make a paycheck and pay taxes. It might be to contend for smaller government. It might be to oppose universal health insurance. But being an otherwise law-abiding slug does not pass for good citizenship.
You disagree that we're to inform ourselves and petition our government for change? Then you live in a place I've never even visited.
TYFCB
1836,
"Not Informed" as in 1099's will not be forthcoming. Didn't mean to suggest the Gov't has no clue OTR/Barter economies and Chinese style banks exist here.
Perhaps the answer to your question lies in the fact that C/A is not my only job and I have spent a bit of time learning about how certain subcultures exist on no apparent income. As Yogi said "You can observe a lot by just watching."
UMR 8:31
Let's assume the feds have taken Yogi's advice as well. Why don't we just have them all dismantled like they did in LA? Afterall, they are all tax dodges. That might help
bring the "fairy tale" of starving them out to a reality.
Federales have to decide whether to use to use those resources to find dirty bombs in shipping containers or bust up barter economies. Those goals actually coincide from time to time and those are about the only times we'll see OTRs and Chinese Banks broken up.
It's a decent aspiration. On that we can agree.
TYFCB
612
I don't believe it's a matter of resources. It's a matter of will.
That is what must change.
Why do suppose that will does not exist, on either side?
The same man said all of the following things. Can you guess who it was?
"Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs."
"Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits, often without paying taxes."
"Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance. These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world."
"Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally."
Who said all these things? Pat Buchanan?
Not even close. These statements were all made by Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, and currently Senate Minority Leader fighting fiercely to protect illegal immigrants.
When Senator Reid said all those other things, it was 1993. There was no congressional or presidential election that year and it was not the Republicans who were trying to pass an immigration bill. It was Senator Reid who introduced his own immigration bill.
In short, the immigration bill is not just about immigration. It is about politics — and the stakes are high. Under such conditions, it is not unusual for a politician to rise above principles.
Being a law-abiding slug is the single BEST thing you can do to be a good citizen. It is when you decide to take an interest in the affairs of others that you become a nuisance.
So do you think if we can dismantle these economies, it would make self deportation more or less of a fairy tale?
1403,
Throughout the history of mankind, there have always been OTR economies, so eliminating them is unlikely.
Still, you question deserves an answer. If we could eliminate OTR/Barter, it would in fact make self-deportation somewhat more likely.
Throughout the history of mankind, there have always been mureders, rapists and thieves too. That doesn't mean we don't try. It's just another excuse.
Just as we don't need to solve every crime and catch every criminal, in order to have deterrents to crime, neither do we have to ferret out and deport every one of the 12 million illegal aliens in this country in order to deter a flood of new illegal aliens.
All across this country, illegal aliens are being caught by the police for all sorts of violations of American laws, from traffic laws to laws against murder. Yet in many, if not most, places the police are under orders not to report these illegal aliens to the federal government.
Imprisoning known and apprehended lawbreakers for the crime of illegally entering this country, in addition to whatever other punishment they receive for other laws that they have broken -- and then sending them back where they came from after their sentences have been served -- would be something that would not be lost on others who are here illegally or who are thinking of coming here illegally.
Just as people can do many things better for themselves than the government can do those things for them, illegal aliens could begin deporting themselves if they found that their crime of coming here illegally was being punished as a serious crime, and that they themselves were no longer being treated as guests of the taxpayers when it comes to their medical care, the education of their children, and other welfare state benefits.
ADHD 0714
The preceding question and answer were limited to the impact of enforcement directed at OTR/Barter economies. There was no suggestion that previous deferral of immigration enforcmement legitimized a lax standard.
I trust you are not the anon who asked the question. He/She has been performing at a much higher standard than that.
TYFCB anyhow.
Since that was too difficult for you to follow. we'll try the simple one at a time approach again, smartass.
Why don't we just enforce existing laws? ...including tax dodging cashless societies?
0915,
I answer your question honestly and get a rant. I was really hoping the rant wasn't you. You showed flashes of potential but finally tanked.
If I were you, I'd quit too.
Who are you to determine whether or not someone has "potential"? You are pretty goddamned proud of yourself aren't you?
You seem to believe the hype and asskissing the ladies over at Oracle slather all over you.
Maybe this guy who's arguing with you was thinking you had the "potential" to not keep dodging questions by droning on and on about how much more you seem to think you know about fucking EVERYTHING than everyone else.
Thank you for the psychobabble. I read English quite well. In so doing, one can determine whether somebody's writing reflects an honest desire to seek either common ground or synergistic solutions.
If you think I require the approval of others to form my self-concept, you not only don't know me. You know nothing about me.
BTW, if you spend some time learning appropriate adjectives, you won't have to resort to vulgarity as an explanation point. Finally, you really need to do something about all that latent hostility you're dealing with. Hope it works out for you.
Do come back after you've achieved inner peace.
TYFCB
Post a Comment
<< Home