PDA

View Full Version : Recommendations for Immigration Reform



Bart Lidofsky
03-07-2010, 06:35 PM
First of all, being against drunk driving is not the same thing as being against driving, even though it's removing only one word.

Similarly, being against illegal immigration is not the same thing as being against immigration, regardless of how much the word twisters want to pretend it is.

I feel that, for a country like the United States, immigration is important to our health. But we also have a right and duty to keep track of the immigrants within our country, at least until they become citizens.

I also feel that we want immigrants who come here because they want to be part of this country, not because they want to remake the United States into the image of the country from which they coming.

Importantly, I believe that if a country expects its citizens to obey its laws, then it should not reward those who break the law while punishing those who follow it. I am strongly against any immigration reform that is not in harmony with this philosophy.

And, finally, I think that when laws come into conflict with each other, common sense should prevail.

Given all this, I would like to see the following in immigration reform:



General principle: make legal immigration easier, make illegal immigration harder.
For the first, a major restructuring of INS is important. Consider the primary and secondary costs of illegal immigration, this would be a very cost effective move. With the facilities we have, determining whether or not to admit an immigrant should not be an onerous task. Communications should be clear, and those communicating with the immigrants should be able to easily access the information they need. It should not take months to perform tasks which should take days.
It would be impractical to find and deport all illegal immigrants. However, the priority should be to deport illegal immigrants who make themselves noticed in a bad way. For example, there should be a clearinghouse system for anybody who gets arrested to determine that they are legally in this country. Just as those who are arrested can be tried for other crimes that it is discovered that they have committed, even if they are innocent of the initial crime of which they are accused, any illegal immigrant who gets arrested should be first on line to be deported.
It is not a good thing to separate families. We also have to respect the Constitution. At the current time, according to the 14th Amendment, children born in the United States are U.S. citizens. However, if a parent is punished for a crime, the fact that their children will suffer is not legally allowed to be a factor in sentencing. Similarly, if an illegal immigrant with American children is deported, they may take the children with them, if they desire. If not, then the children would be treated similarly to the children of parents who are sent to prison; either allowed to live with friends or relatives who are willing to take them in, or placed in the foster care system. If they go with their parents, they will continue to be U.S. citizens.
Except in extraordinary circumstances, dual citizenship should not be allowed for those over 18 years old. On paper dual citizenship can be allowed for legal reasons, but loss of citizenship should be the default when someone votes in foreign elections, holds office in a foreign government, or serves in a foreign armed forces, with exceptions provided on a case-by-case basis (as opposed to the reverse, which is the practice today). Membership in foreign paramilitary organizations which have declared war on the United States would be considered to be serving in a foreign armed force (note that this would include Hezbollah, but not Hamas, which has both official and unofficial policies NOT to act directly against the U.S.).
Illegal immigrants who want to make their status legal, for a period of time after this reform plan is passed (say, 1-2 years) may turn themselves in. If it turns out that, if they had applied for legal immigration from their home country and such status would be granted, they will be allowed to apply from the United States. If not, they will be allowed to return to their home country without prejudice, and allowed to apply for legal immigration from their home country. Organizations formed to help these immigrants (such as managing property while they are away), as well as helping those who want their American-born children to stay in the United States, should be granted the same level of not-for-profit status as groups that provide similar services for parolees and the families of convicted criminals.
In the interest of humanitarianism and public safety, hospitals and doctors will not be required to check the residency status of incoming patients. Those with communicable diseases will be treated the same as U.S. citizens. Those who have non-communicable conditions who wish to be treated with public funding will have to provide proof of legal residency in the United States. Those who can't will have their information turned over to the INS as a condition of treatment.
For a child who has been convicted of a crime to be returned to his or her parents, the parents will be required to provide proof of legal residency, or have their information sent to the INS.
For someone to sponsor an immigrant coming to the United States, they must be financially responsible for that person for a period of time (5 years)? People living on public assistance which would be revoked if the person was employed are not eligible to sponsor immigrants. Sponsored immigrants may not receive public assistance for the period in which they are sponsored, except for insurance benefits for which they have paid, such as unemployment.
Special consideration can always be given on a case-by-case basis. Notably, if an adult who was illegally brought into the United States as a young child, especially if they were young enough that they have virtually no memory of their native country (such as not even being able to speak the language) then their case should be reviewed, possibly to be allowed to remain in this country while awaiting their status to be changed to legal, as they were not culpable in breaking the law.
Note that these are for legal admission to the United States, and not citizenship, which is another discussion entirely.

Datalapper
03-08-2010, 04:16 PM
Looks good. Well thought out, retaining humanitarian considerations (ie: access to healthcare) while at the same time not rewarding illegal behavior like our local (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/14/bloomberg-defends-new-york-immigration/?fbid=XlZohMDzABE) 'can't ask, don't tell' policy.
Have you passed this along to your D.C. congressional representatives? Immigration reform seems to be the next item on the agenda once healthcare clears these final hurdles...

Not really clear about item #10 though. How would a young child manage to 'come here'? Assuming it was on the backs of her illegally immigrated parents, why the special consideration? (to be allowed to remain in this country while awaiting their status to be changed to legal).
Under what circumstances should an iilegal child (not an anchor baby like M.Malkin) be changed TO legal?
Is this like an Elian Gonzales thing? Because its a good thing he was deported back home with his dad. Kid was just a budding Castro-loving commie symp! :D
Didn't take long before his true colors (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25189977/) came out. ;)

Seriously, though. Where do we draw the line? We can't save every Chinese infant from female infanticide, nor protect every Congo girl from being raped (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/08/11/congo.rape/index.html) before they turn ten, so which ones do we give this 'special consideration' to?
Seems this provision would be rewarding the parents for illegally bringing extra baggage across our border.

Bart Lidofsky
03-09-2010, 01:21 AM
Not really clear about item #10 though. How would a young child manage to 'come here'? Assuming it was on the backs of her illegally immigrated parents, why the special consideration? (to be allowed to remain in this country while awaiting their status to be changed to legal).
I wrote a detailed reply, then realized that I was not sufficiently clear. I was thinking about special consideration if someone was brought here as a young child, and therefore bearing no personal culpability for coming here illegally, who reaches adulthood when his or her status is discovered. To give a similar case, recently there was Qing Hong Wu in New York; he was a legal immigrant, but had gotten in trouble with the law as a teenager. He turned his life around, and wanted to become a U.S. citizen. Instead, he was going to be deported because of his criminal past, even though the judge who convicted him in the first place asked for lenience. Governor Paterson ended up giving him a pardon (which counts as special consideration on a case-by-case basis).

In response to your later comment, I really don't think reuniting a child with his parent, in obedience with treaties on parental rights to which the United States is a party, is the same as deporting the child.

One of the articles you pointed out, though, reminds me of a point I left out: since the reporting of crimes is important, nobody should be deported for doing so. If an illegal immigrant files a lawsuit, they should, parallel to what happens if a fugitive files a lawsuit: the lawsuit can go through, but the information is handed to the appropriate authorities. There should be no anonymous filing of lawsuits.

bazzer
03-10-2010, 02:31 PM
I won't pretend I know how to solve the problem. I just hope the "solution" doesn't involve this. (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/09/sen-schumers-immigration-reform-is-a-national-id/)

Datalapper
03-10-2010, 05:56 PM
While conceding that a Lindsay Graham-Chuck Schumer collaboration is not the best genesis for any legislation; I think concern about something that hasn't even moved past the idea stage and hasn't even been proposed as a bill yet is premature.
Better, IMO to focus on already passed and Presidentialy signed into law (5 years ago); legislation that is imposing on our states the same worrisome mandates of a potential 'National I.D. card'.

The ACLU scored the final incarnation (http://www.aclu.org/files/images/general/asset_upload_file162_33700.pdf) of the 'Real I.D.' (http://www.aclu.org/files/images/general/asset_upload_file162_33700.pdf) act and it came up woefully short on numerous counts.

Our new DHS chief Napolitano is on record (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/22/real.ID.debate/) as opposing the existing law & is working on ways to repeal, or reform it.
Lets wait & see what happens with this battle.
Better yet, Lets see how its playing out already.

The GOP will obstruct, filibuster and call the Dems 'weak on national security' for proposing any change to this "necessary program (http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=123495)" for "keeping America safe"; while right-wing think tanks (oops, I mean libertarian) will pre-emptively headline (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/09/sen-schumers-immigration-reform-is-a-national-id/) Chuck Schumer as the evil, Big-Brother/Big Government, anti-business, anti-personal privacy enemy of the people (while his GOP partner, Lindsey Graham is kept entirely out of the article) for the proposal of something that may never even make it out of committee.

Curious. How does the NRA come down on this issue? If you need a driver's license to buy a gun at a gun show, and the feds are now mandating what constitutes a *valid* driver's license, is there a reasonable Second Amendment concern to be found here?

PeteE
03-10-2010, 06:01 PM
I won't pretend I know how to solve the problem. I just hope the "solution" doesn't involve this. (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/09/sen-schumers-immigration-reform-is-a-national-id/)

On the one hand, I'm not that alarmed by this as some. On the other hand, I have no idea how it would be enforced. One needs a driver license when driving, a library card to check out books, a passport when leaving the country, and so on. When would you need to carry an identification card?

What if you just used the existing system and required workers to either have a passport or a green card or the equivilant at their time of hire?

bazzer
03-10-2010, 10:13 PM
One needs a driver license when driving, a library card to check out books, a passport when leaving the country, and so on. When would you need to carry an identification card?

That's *exactly* it! That's exactly what worries me about it. They can reassure us all they want, but they also reassured us that Social Security numbers would only be used for Social Security (and that the income tax was temporary, and that it would only affect the rich, and....)

Bart Lidofsky
03-11-2010, 03:31 PM
The ACLU scored the final incarnation (http://www.aclu.org/files/images/general/asset_upload_file162_33700.pdf) of the 'Real I.D.' (http://www.aclu.org/files/images/general/asset_upload_file162_33700.pdf) act and it came up woefully short on numerous counts.
As with many, I'm far more worried about the, "As long as it's here, let's use it for..." mentality than the idea of a national ID in the first place. Any national ID law would require rock solid protections against abuse.

I actually read through the document, and find myself largely in agreement with the ACLU's findings; I do, however, have more faith in the ability to fix most of the flaws than the ACLU does; it requires a little imagination.

One interesting aspect which the ACLU does not touch is that if a Real ID would be required for voting, it would also require that it would have to be provided with no cost to the individual. Otherwise it would be an unconstitutional poll tax (I posted here a few years back a description of a secure electronic voting system; that was one of the more important parameters to be considered).