I think we need to talk about what was missing from the last “comprehensive immigration reform” proposal.
In the last round of serious discussions on this topic, it was established that a path to citizenship would not be made available to illegal immigrants. There is an opportunity to build on that principle.
Further, failing to deal with the illegal immigrants already here is not an option. One purpose of this legislation is to get an idea of who is already here, and this is necessary because some illegal immigrants are dangerous criminals in the ordinary sense of that phrase. We need to deal with all of them.
In my opinion, what is needed is an alternative working model for the prior legislation. It needs to be comprehensive: that is, it needs to deal with all kinds of immigrants, illegal and legal, as well as the reasons for their travel to the US: some merely want to work, some want to engage in criminal enterprises, including terrorist attacks. We need to find a mechanism for separating the groups, and the only way to do this is to provide the means to find them and keep track of them should the need arise.
The last legislation was defective because it avoided establishing a guest worker program designed to deal with the bulk of our current illegal immigrant population. A guest worker program could be initiated something like this:
1. All non-citizens residing in the US on a given day (I would specify a specific date in the past, to avoid encouraging a wave of illegal immigration), who have not previously registered with the US government, or who have overstayed their visas, are presumed to be here legally, and are required to provide notice of their residence, identity and citizenship within a short time frame. We can use the same mechanisms for this project as we do for voter registration. This is by no means an insurmountable problem.
2. All members of this group will be presumed to be guest workers with no path to U.S. citizenship, absent a showing of intent, and on a case-by-case basis. Illegal entry into this country will create an irrebutable presumption that the person does not intend to become a US citizen.
3. Persons with defects in their documentation (such as overstaying their visas), on a proper showing of intent (for example, a history of paying their taxes) may eventually be allowed citizenship.
4. Persons who commit a felony in this country, at minimum, create an irrebutable presumption that the person does not intend to become a US citizen. Those who plead guilty to a lesser included offense in a felony case also create an irrebutable presumption that the person does not intend to become a US citizen.
5. Children born in the US will be US citizens (required by the Constitution) but this fact does not affect the immigration status of their parents. In particular, minors whose parents are deported shall be deported with their parents. This would end the “anchor-baby” abuses.
6. I personally would sweeten the deal by adding, for those persons who have demonstrated a good-faith intent to follow the laws of this country (such as by paying all their taxes) a portable benefit similar to, but not linked to and not of the same amount as, Social Security. We do not owe this to anybody, but I would regard it as a pragmatic, convenient way of exporting Americans where they are most needed.
The United States has long operated as a safety valve for poor-quality economies of various countries, especially those to our south. As a result, we have been getting their most desperate, vigorous and determined people, who send money home. These funds are significant, and they go where they are needed, and to people who will use them well. This is trickle-down economics at its finest, and we should consider expanding on this avenue of influence.
People who come here to this country to work are already primed to learn our system, and they tend to soak up our ideas. If we make is easy for them to go home with a portable benefit, they will take our ideas and some added financial clout back with them. I think such a program, constructed with adequate safeguards against abuse, would be very helpful to encourage both political and economic reform in countries that need it very badly, and should be considered as part of our foreign aid.
Mexico, for example, still runs on bribes and has been resistant to decades of efforts at reform. The inefficiency introduced by a decision-making process that is based on bribes produces a wretched economy. If we make a point of exporting 50-year-old people with just a little bit of disposable income, that system will change.
