Guest contributor: Michael Stafford, author of An Upward Calling: Politics for the Common Good
Part 2
Comprehensive immigration reform that includes both an “earned legalization” program and improved enforcement of our immigration laws would likely enjoy broad support. According to polling done over the past several years, a majority of Americans support the development of an earned legalization program done in conjunction with enhanced border security and internal enforcement. Polls show that a majority of Republican, Democratic and Independent voters support reform. At the same time, when given a choice, a majority favor “earned legalization” programs over an “enforcement-only” approach. This support for comprehensive reform has stayed consistent over time. As such, comprehensive reform that includes an “earned legalization” program would command legitimacy. 3
The absence of realistic alternatives also weighs heavily in favor of comprehensive reform and earned legalization. A massive round-up and deportation of the millions of unauthorized immigrants in the United States is not feasible from a practical perspective- as Sen. John McCain observed in 2006, “it would take 200,000 buses extending along a 1700 mile long line to deport 11 million people”- and would, if carried out, lead to immense human suffering and disruption to our own economy. It would also entail the disruption of well-established family units, the deportation of heads of households, and the removal of many United States citizen children born to undocumented parents.
Setting aside the human toll, such a policy would also be extremely costly for the United States. According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, rounding up and removing our undocumented population would cost as much as $100 billion dollars or more. Other estimates are higher, ranging up to $230 billion.4 Long term, according to the Center for American Progress, the removal of our undocumented immigrant population would result in a cumulative $2.6 trillion drop in our GDP over a decade.
It is extremely unlikely that the people of the United States will ever countenance the type of “draconian police measures necessary” to identify, detain and deport such a large population,5 nor that the federal government would ever be able to devote the resources necessary to accomplish such a task.
Given the foregoing, as Sen. Lindsey Graham noted in 2010, locating, jailing, and deporting upwards of 12 million undocumented immigrants is neither a workable, nor a practical, solution.6
Comprehensive immigration reform could also be structured in a way that does justice to those who have complied with our laws and entered our nation legally and, thereafter, taken the actions necessary to remain in status. For example, in addition to being placed in the back of the line for legal permanent residency, participants in an “earned legalization” program could also be permanently barred from naturalizing and becoming U.S. citizens. Such a penalty affirms the seriousness of our immigration laws, does justice to those who have immigrated legally, and provides a disincentive to future illegal immigration.
Regardless, allowing the present status quo to continue indefinitely into the future is not a morally defensible course of action. As the USCCB has observed, an “immigration policy that allows people to live here and contribute to society for years but refuses to offer them the opportunity to achieve legal status does not serve the common good.”7
Immigration policy is an issue of national significance. As such, the push for comprehensive reform should be a bipartisan effort. Republicans can look to the legacy of both President’s Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush on this issue. Indeed, it is often forgotten that President Reagan supported the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, legislation that included an amnesty for over 2 million unauthorized immigrants. At the same time, Democrats have the example set by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy on this issue, as well as, more recently, President Obama’s (as yet still unfulfilled) campaign pledge to support reform.
Immigration policy has historically been a divisive issue nationally. All too often, “the immigration debate’s harsh rhetoric makes scapegoats of immigrants” and dehumanizes them in various ways.8 We each have an obligation, whatever our views on the merits of the issue may be, to help shape the tenor of the debate in a way that respects the fundamental human dignity of unauthorized immigrants.
For all these reasons, “comprehensive immigration reform is the only humane solution to the problem of illegal immigration.”9 Today, working together, an opportunity exists to address, and resolve, a long-standing problem for our nation. We must seize it, and enact bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform.
The logistical impossibility of deportation was part of the plan during the first amnesty. Open border advocates know that the longer enforcement was delayed, the harder it would be to finally implement.
And “earned legalization” DOES NOT have broad support, as demonstrated by the fact that its defeated, usually because constituents call into their representatives in massive numbers demand ENFORCEMENT FIRST.
No more amnesties, under any name, before the flow of illegal immigration is, at least, slowed. When THAT is taken seriously, THEN we can think about other reforms. Because if we don’t, then what prevents other illegal aliens from jumping the line and using that to become legal. We would invite massive more numbers to come here.
I don’t know anyone who is an open border advocate. Who are you speaking of?
Actually, the average American does support earned citizenship. The only people who don’t are conservatives who think that amnesty means paying fines and jumping through hoops. Amnesty is just a buzz word meaning send all the Mexicans home.
And there is no line.
If you have what is being described as “earned citizenship” then nothing will stop the new influx of illegal aliens. And there is a line, because there’s a quota. You may not be an open border advocate, but there are many, especially in the Southwest.
Also, what makes you think that these illegal immigrants WANT to become citizens? Why should they pay all these penalties when they’ve lived here successfully, especially in sanctuary cities, for years? Their children are considered Americans, so we won’t deport them even if we do enforce the law. All this does is get more voters for whichever party panders to them the most.
The simple solution to the voting issue is to create a 20 year wait time.
As for ‘getting in line’ to come here, I would not call what we have a quota system. It is far more screwed up than that. If you live in Mexico and want to immigrate legally to the USA, it costs thousands of dollars and probably a 10-20 year wait. Now where is the reality in that? If you are already poor, the likelihood that you will have that kind of money is slim.
So it really sounds like we just don’t let in people …oh say from Mexico, especially if they are poor.
Most illegal immigrants want to be here legally. They don’t find it fun having to live in the shadows and below the radar, especially with all the hostility. It is difficult to get decent paying jobs. Still, the jobs pay far better than what they could get at home.
I will agree that I doubt most illegal immigrants care much about citizenship. What they do care about is legal residency.
I get the impression you don’t know many folks who have been illegal immigrants?
Not really, but I do know many legal immigrants. My ex-bro in law is one. My nieces and nephew are “half-Guatemalan.”
Hit submit too soon
My mother had a huge number of “latin” friends, being a spanish teacher. She was close to the Cuban community in New Orleans and taught english as a 2nd language for years.
I think you will find the illegal immigrant community to be very different from what you described. Its easy to put a political mantra on the entire issue but when you attach a face the entire picture changes.
Well, from what I’ve seen of the illegal immigrant community over the years, I don’t think so.
And I’m concentrating on the Latin immigration because that is 80-90% of the illegal immigration problem.
Most of them are here to work and send money home.
Most of them are, other than being here illegally and using false ID’s, law abiding.
Many want to have children here so that their children become citizens.
Much of their support structure is political in nature, being those in this country that want to advance an open borders agenda, a Democrat voting block, or assorted Hispanic supremacy or separatist movements.
All of them are breaking the laws. All of them are flouting American sovereignty. All of them are here because their countries use ours as a safety valve and don’t improve their own societies.
Why is it that I should feel differently because I might know some personally. Is personal sympathy a reason to ignore laws? Should I advocate that those stay while others be deported? That, because I now have a “face” to put on the illegal aliens, that we should ignore our border and immigration laws?
If you have a face to put on a problem then often it makes us more inclined to analyze rather than just use FAIR talking points.
A few points:
1. most immigrants work and send money home and always have, regardless of which wave we are speaking of. Eurpeans did it also.
2. I don’t know what you mean by ‘most’ when you say are ‘most are using fake IDs.’ Where did you get the word most from? Some have fake IDs. All do not.
3. Saying that many want to have children here to obtain citizenship is simply unfounded. Many have children here because they are of child-bearing age. Most don’t have an alternative plot. Who thinks that far ahead when you are hungry.
4. Most illegal immigrants are not political. Many are afraid of politics in fact.
5. I totally disagree with flouting American sovereignty.
6. I agree. Most are law-abiding. Some are not. We address those individuals.
I think if you knew people and had talked to them you would not be so quick to analyze the issue in terms of FAIR talking points. There are some pretty sweeping generalizations being made.
Excellent points Moon!
If an illegal immigrant has a job, where did he get his paperwork from? What SS number did he use? How did he prove his residency? What birth certificate did he use? Did he tell the employer that he is here illegally? If so, why did he get hired? If he did not, he lied on the employment application and should be fired.
Most are law abiding in that they do not break criminal laws. They ALL broke civil law. While THEY may not be political, their presence gives strength to those Hispanic racist and separatist movements, like La Raza. The Democrat party panders to them to get votes and pushes easy citizenship paths so as to get more voters.
If they are not flouting American sovereignty, then what do you call it? Mexico and other countries are filing as “friends of the claimant” (don’t know the legal term) in Georgia to halt state enforcement against illegal aliens. Mexico has helped illegal aliens stay in this country. It doesn’t enforce the border with us, but will imprison and return any coming across THEIR southern border.
Let’s just copy their immigration laws and apply them to Mexican illegal immigrants. That would be fair, wouldn’t it?
And again, why should my analysis be different if I know illegal alien families. My sympathy would not nor should it, affect my adherence or support of the law.
About 40% of the illegal immigrant population overstayed their visa. Some have a TIN number. You prove where you live using rental agreements and utility bills. What do you need a birth certificate for? Some illegal immigrants are day workers. Some work for companies that pay under the table. All aren’t using falsified documents. Some are. That is a problem.
La Raza-you are aware that La Raza is over-used and isn’t one organization? The National Council of La Raza is like the Hispanic NAACP. Its a pretty low key group. It works on civil rights and advocacy. There are other movements that call themselves La Raza. Some are even gangs.
Why should you care? Tell me, if all the illegal immigrants were in Texas, would you be as concerned? I don’t think so. I also think you have a rather canned view of immigration that sounds right off the FAIR page. It doesn’t sound like you have ever viewed the situation through any other view. For instance, you are aware that people from El Salvadore, in our area, often have a TIPS visa. They are here on hardship because of earthquakes and hurricanes that happened back around 2000. Very often their spouse is not here legally. Many hispanic families are blended.
I am all in favor of enforcing the border crossings….all of them. I am also realist enough to know it can’t be hermetically sealed.
I know that it can’t be sealed. But it can be better controlled. And enforcement can be better developed.
The people on a TIPS visa would not be considered illegal aliens unless they stay past the requirements.
As for FAIR…I don’t know who or what they are.
I would care about the illegal immigration problem if it was only in Texas. I am not directly affected by illegal immigration in my neighborhood, ie loitering day workers, etc. The nearby apartments are filled with them, but other than that…not so much. When I speak of La Raza, just add in all the other advocacy groups. I don’t have a list. And La Raza is not that low key. Very instrumental in advocating open borders, sanctuary, and were involved in organizing those demonstrations of illegal aliens during the Amnesty bill discussions.
Why is it that wanting the laws enforced and illegal immigration stopped or slowed is controversial? I don’t have a problem will LEGAL immigration and have, in fact, argued for a simplified process.
@Cargo
FAIR is supplying where ever you are getting your immigration \talking points from. Its all way too familiar.
The people on TIPS are legal but often their spouses and kids aren’t. Their kids they have here are.
re La Raza I am speaking of the National Council of La Raza. It is often confused with other folks who also want to call themselves ‘the people.’
There are many Dine groups that are comprised of Navajo. Same reason.
It is a civil rights and advocacy group. Why wouldn’t hispanics have such a group? It seems perfectly normal to me. Do you have a reference that they are a racist group or is it that they are just interested in hispanic issues? I don’t necessarily think they are advocating open borders. Perhaps I am wrong.
I don’t think most people are in favor of illegal immigration. That’s the reason we want the rules fixed. The ones we have don’t work.
This is what I’m talking about: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=13863 and
http://theothermccain.com/2010/05/30/indigenous-mexicans-la-raza-and-the-reconquista-myth/
I’m talking about those involved in the “reconquista” movement. La Raza and Mecha are intimately involved.
From the Human Events link:
*******
MEChA and the La Raza movement teach that Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State make up an area known as “Aztlan” — a fictional ancestral homeland of the Aztecs before Europeans arrived in North America. As such, it belongs to the followers of MEChA. These are all areas America should surrender to “La Raza” once enough immigrants, legal or illegal, enter to claim a majority, as in Los Angeles. The current borders of the United States will simply be extinguished.
This plan is what is referred to as the “Reconquista” or reconquest, of the Western U.S.
But it won’t end with territorial occupation and secession. The final plan for the La Raza movement includes the ethnic cleansing of Americans of European, African, and Asian descent out of “Aztlan.”
As Miguel Perez of Cal State-Northridge’s MEChA chapter has been quoted as saying: “The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest [to it]. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled — opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power.”
*******
Also, I’m not getting anything from FAIR. These are my own observations over the years of the pro-illegal immigration movement, the open borders people, and my thoughts on the current illegal immigration situation.