My Immigration Solution

Lest I fall into the trap of thinking that big political problems have simple solutions, I’ll say this carefully. We’ve created a brouhaha in Arizona by opting to enforce federal immigration laws at the state level. It’s estimated that non-effective enforcement of those laws by the U.S. Government, including a penetrable border with Mexico, have [...]

Lest I fall into the trap of thinking that big political problems have simple solutions, I’ll say this carefully.

We’ve created a brouhaha in Arizona by opting to enforce federal immigration laws at the state level. It’s estimated that non-effective enforcement of those laws by the U.S. Government, including a penetrable border with Mexico, have allowed around 11 million people to enter and live in the United States illegally. Once here, many of them benefit from medical care, public education, public housing, welfare, police, and social services provided by the cities, counties and states in which they choose to reside.

Bearing in mind my misgivings about simple solutions, it seems to me that a few key decisions could straighten out the biggest parts of the problem, both to prevent more illegal entry to the United States and to solve any issues caused by having undocumented residents. We also must ensure that our solution cannot be misconstrued as racism, which is a common obstacle to solving the problem, and is simply not a factor in my own little problem-solving exercise.

So, here is my simple-but-cautious four-stage solution:

1) Lock down the border. It’s an essential first step. If you can’t jump the line at Starbucks, you can’t jump the line at America. If we’re going to have a nation, it must have a border, and if we’re going to have a border, it must be protected. As Clarence B. Jones says in the Huffington Post, “We have the most sophisticated surveillance and monitoring technology in history, the most formidable military in the world, yet we are unable to stop the daily intrusion of illegal immigrants from Mexico into the United States? This is a failure of policy, not one of capability.”

2) Give the 11 million illegal residents of the United States a 6-month exemption from apprehension and deportation, during which time they must file paperwork establishing residency with the US Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Social Security Administration and the payment of taxes to the Internal Revenue Service. They will be made legal residents in exchange for being part of the system.

3) After the 6-month exemption period, those who have not joined the legal system will be subject to apprehension and deportation by both federal law enforcement agencies and states like Arizona who have enacted laws enforcing the federal ones.

4) Cut the bureaucracy. When I did it, I had reams of paperwork, affidavits from sponsors in the U.S., a trip to the U.S. Embassy in London including an overnight stay, a trip to a physician’s office, vaccinations, a chest x-ray that had to be carried into the country by hand, and the best part of a thousand dollars. The typical waiting list for a green card is about 3 years. This only encourages people to do it illegally. If I was thirsty and the line at Starbucks was 3 years long, I might jump the line too. Make the immigration process easier.

This four-stage process might be a potential solution, might it not? Can anyone tell me why it wouldn’t be satisfactory, both to reasonable people who believe in civil rights and kindness, and to reasonable people who believe in immigration laws and national security?

11 Comments

  1. Sean on April 27, 2010 | Permalink

    We had a bout of amnesty during Regan. Obviously it didn’t work and actually encouraged more illegal immigration.

    Take out step 3. Ship em back this time and lay down the law! If you were king I’d probably vote for you. Wait…. Kings aren’t voted for are they? It’s a slight issue, but I’m sure we could work through it.

  2. Ronan on April 27, 2010 | Permalink

    Sean,

    How exactly do you reckon Reagan’s amnesty “actually encouraged more illegal immigration”?

    Show me one source where an actual illegal alien says, “I was encouraged to come to the USA illegally because of Reagan’s amnesty” and I’ll give you the argument.

    I’m waiting!!!

  3. Sean on April 27, 2010 | Permalink

    “I was encouraged to come to the USA illegally because of Reagan’s amnesty”

    Your altimatum demands 2 things of today’s illegals.

    1) They know who Reagan is.

    2) They can speak English.

    I don’t think I can find an illegal that knows both, You win.

  4. John on April 28, 2010 | Permalink

    Dudes,

    My solution is a winner! We do that, we end the problem! Agree? YEAAAAAAHHH! Come on!!! Let’s do it!

    Sincerely,
    John

  5. Joe on April 28, 2010 | Permalink

    John,
    Interesting proposal and one that I believe could answer MOST of the concerns of the “natives”. However, I can’t help but feel there will continue to be a strong sense of tribalism among many of our citizens pushing for closed borders. In my own family (of Italian heritage) 2 of my brothers hear the word “Mexican” and the alarm goes off to deport. One colleague of my brother, a public school teacher no less, questioned why our hospitals don’t turn away the same illegals when entering the ER. When I asked her why she didn’t stand guard at her school and spend time policing for undocumented students she became indignant but without an answer.

    I fear, much like health care reform, this debate will get much uglier before we can get to a consensus… if we ever get there.

  6. John on April 29, 2010 | Permalink

    I think we have a problem on both sides of the aisle here that’s worth noting: liberals think conservatives are racist and just hate Mexicans; conservatives think liberals just want the Hispanic vote!

    If we deal only with the reasonable people on both sides, we should be able to ignore these things and get something done. I agree with you that there are still many unreasonable people; hopefully not enough to hinder. :-)

  7. Ronan on April 30, 2010 | Permalink

    OK, I lifted this from CNN but it illustrates the facts …

    High levels of illegal immigration and crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants are among the key rationales cited by some supporters of a tough new immigration law in Arizona.

    “Border violence and crime due to illegal immigration are critically important issues to the people of our state,” Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said at the signing of the controversial bill, SB 1070. “There is no higher priority than protecting the citizens of Arizona. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of the drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life.”

    Yet, a look at statistics from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency and the FBI indicate that both the number of illegal crossers and violent crime in general have actually decreased in the past several years.

    According to FBI statistics, violent crimes reported in Arizona dropped by nearly 1,500 reported incidents between 2005 and 2008. Reported property crimes also fell, from about 287,000 reported incidents to 279,000 in the same period. These decreases are accentuated by the fact that Arizona’s population grew by 600,000 between 2005 and 2008.

    According to the nonpartisan Immigration Policy Institute, proponents of the bill “overlook two salient points: Crime rates have already been falling in Arizona for years despite the presence of unauthorized immigrants, and a century’s worth of research has demonstrated that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be behind bars than the native-born.”

    Backers of the bill maintain that crime is a key reason for the necessity of the tough immigration law.

    Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce this week told CNN’s Tony Harris that half the murders in Phoenix are committed by unauthorized immigrants and that the city is the second in the world in kidnappings.

    A CNN Fact Check found that the senator’s claim about the murders in Phoenix cannot be proven, but he did have police statistics to back up his claims of the city’s high number of kidnappings, although its exact standing in the world is not clear.
    Video: Sheriff: New law will curb immigration
    Video: Police on both sides of new Arizona law
    RELATED TOPICS

    * Arizona
    * U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    * Crime Statistics
    * Illegal Immigration and Deportation
    * Federal Bureau of Investigation

    In Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has long been an advocate of tough measures against illegal immigration. His officers already check the immigration status of people they detain for other crimes, he said.

    “We’ve been doing it for a long time, but this [law] gives us just a little more authority,” Arpaio told CNN.

    One way that Arpaio says he measures his success is that he hears that immigrants who entered the country illegally are leaving his county.

    “It’s a good indicator,” he said.

    Statewide illegal immigration trends are harder to gauge.

    One aspect of it is the number of apprehensions of unauthorized immigrants made by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency. Since a peak in 2000 of more than 600,000 illegal crossers apprehended, the number fell to 241,000 in 2009, Tucson Sector Public Affairs Officer Mario Escalante told CNN.

    “We’ve seen a steady decline,” he said.

    Intelligence-driven operations have increased the effectiveness of the Border Patrol’s efforts, he added.

    Meanwhile, the cartel violence that has gripped Mexico for the most part has remained there, he said.

    Human and drug smugglers are being “more aggressive because we’re being successful,” Escalante said, “But we’ve been lucky not to see that type of [violence] spill over here.”

  8. Ronan on April 30, 2010 | Permalink

    Sean, you daft racist.

    “altimatum”?

    And you say “illegals” are ignorant?

  9. Ronan on April 30, 2010 | Permalink

    Conservatives moan about big government and how Obama’s health care will take away their liberty … blah blah fucking blah … then they go and vote for this bullshit. Talk about taking away liberties … oh but wait … it’s not white folk who are gonna be harassed by cops is it? Well that’s OK then.

    THEY CAME FIRST for the Hispanics,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Hispanic. You catch my drift?

    Conservatives. Dumber than a box of hammers. Seriously.

  10. Sean on May 2, 2010 | Permalink

    That would make it twice in one week.

    Pulling the racist card is the sign of a lost argument, topping it off with spell checker is slightly new and creative. These two trump card usually come together, but are often seperated by at least 1 post. Congrads on fitting the together in one paragraph.

    I’m not racist, though I am 2 generations from legal citizenship. Grandma and Grandpa both came through Juarez as full fledged beaners, learned English and got green cards. They hate what illegals have done to our country too. But of course, they’re racist too!

  11. Ronan on May 3, 2010 | Permalink

    So without racial profiling, how are the police going to identify illegal aliens? Are they going to look for people who seem homesick? Who send lots of postcards? Not a racist law? Come on!

    So, please, tell me, what have “illegals” “done” to your country? The shit that US citizens get up to has made this a fucked up enough place.

    You say your grandparents were “illegals”. But what, they were good “illegals”, willing to work hard to give their family a better life? The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    Spell-checker. Please.

POST A COMMENT

Your email is never published nor shared.

FOLLOW

John on Facebook

LISTEN

John at KLPZ

OP-ED

John Wright Op-Ed