« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

It’s Time for Freedom of Immigration

The immigration reform proposal from a bipartisan group of Senators takes reform in the wrong direction. It fails to defend our borders, expands the federal bureaucracy, and further entangles the government in economic decisions it has no business making.

Some of the proposals we will hear in the coming days and weeks will be made in good faith. Others will be made to gain political advantage. None will be designed to make people more free.

Both Conn Carroll and Michelle Malkin conclude that the bipartisan Senate plan is fundamentally the same as the failed 2007 Bush-McCain-Kennedy plan.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) issued this statement:

I appreciate the good work that senators in both parties have put into trying to fix our broken immigration system. There are some good elements in this proposal, especially increasing the resources and manpower to secure our border and also improving and streamlining legal immigration. However, I have deep concerns with the proposed path to citizenship. To allow those who came here illegally to be placed on such a path is both inconsistent with rule of law and profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who waited years, if not decades, to come to America legally.

The elements of the bipartisan Senate plan are:

1. Create a tough but fair path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States that is contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether legal immigrants have left the country when required;

The way to think of immigration reform is not as amnesty, but as an admission that our laws and policies have failed. When a law isn’t working, you don’t keep it in place just because it’s in place, you change it. When no one drove 55 MPH on the highway, we changed the law. When Obamacare fails, we will change that law, too.

“But they broke the law!” people will say. Yes, they did. So are you, right now. We have so many laws that it’s impossible not to break them. When they come for your gun, are you going to give it up, or claim it’s been lost or stolen? You’ll be breaking several laws if you do.

Accompanying the admission of failure must be enough change in the law to keep the failure from recurring. In this case, we don’t have that.

Missing is any mention of a border fence or objectively verifiable border security.  The plan creates a commission of governors and others to report on border security. But border security is a federal responsibility, and must serve national purposes. Governors — and especially, the others, may be politically served by sacrificing border security for the flow of people through their state, or for some other local priority.

The addition of resources to border security sounds nice, but it’s really just an expansion of the DHS bureaucracy. Doubtless the missing fence will be replaced with drones, presumably armed, flying over US soil. Those resources can be cut back in any budget year or the first time some drone operator gets careless and does something dreadful.

In any event, President Obama is said to oppose tying the timetable for citizenship border security, believing it should just happen.  He will bully Republicans into accepting a blanket amnesty without even the phony promise of increased border security.  They will probably give in, rather than be seen as anti-immigrant.

2. Reform our legal immigration system to better recognize the importance of characteristics that will help build the American economy and strengthen American families;

This is the worst part of the proposal, from my perspective. I would like the federal government to check the criminal status and background of those entering the country, and if they are found not to be terrorists or criminals, they should be allowed to enter and get on a path to citizenship. The government should not try to decide what will help the economy, because that is something the government is unable to know.

3. Create an effective employment verification system that will prevent identity theft and end the hiring of future unauthorized workers; and,

Civil libertarians are sounding the alarm over the plan’s reliance on E-verify, calling it a thinly-disguised nationald ID. A major problem with a national ID is, briefly, that the source documents used to establish the ID are less secure than the ID.

4. Establish an improved process for admitting future workers to serve our nation’s workforce needs, while simultaneously protecting all workers.

This is further Soviet-style economic central planning, ordering up “workers” as one orders bulk raw material. It is a despicable “guest worker program”, which formalizes the same underclass of non-citizen that immigration reform is designed to eliminate.

The plan would “Allow employers to hire immigrants if it can be demonstrated that they were unsuccessful in recruiting an American to fill an open position and the hiring of an immigrant will not displace American workers;”.

My Solution, for what it’s worth:

  1. Build a series of connected fences, walls, ditches, causeways, or other physical barriers along our borders. Equip each with every type of sensor needed: video, sound, seismic, etc.  Make sure no one enters the country who intends us harm.
  2. Let everyone else in, and let anyone apply for citizenship without any impediment or quota for race, creed, or even marketable skill. Deny them benefits until they are citizens.  Ideally, I’d rather drastically cut back on our entitlement state to care only for the truly helpless, regardless of citizenship.
  3. Delay citizenship applications for those here already until the backlog of foreign applicants is cleared.

Opening immigration to anyone who wants in and is willing to try to support themselves is good policy, it’s good politics, and it’s good tactics. President Obama will be forced to oppose it by his union cronies. If nothing else, it’s leverage.

Unfortunately, the people writing our laws believe it is their job to tinker with the economy and control the makeup of our population.  This reform opportunity, should they be successful, will extend the scope and reach of our government and deny people freedom, in the name of a false equality and partisan political advantage.

COMMENTS

  • avgjo

    You know, the more i watch what’s happening to the country, the more i’m beginning to think that certain platitudes should be re-examined.

    One of these is the platitude that opening immigration to anyone who wants in etc. etc. is good.

    I look around the world, and I see an increase in statism and oppression, most usually with the consent of those who are ruled. There are serious cultural differences between America as founded and just about the rest of the world. So I wonder whether it is really a good idea to import these cultures en masse, without at least a cooling-off period for assimilation?

    • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Loren Heal

      “Platitude”, huh? I didn’t know it was a platitude, since it runs counter to the norm as expressed in law.

      Still, your point is important to address. There is oppression around the world. People who like that sort of thing have plenty of places to choose it. I see no reason to think they’d come here looking for it. In fact, most people come here looking to escape it.

      • avgjo

        It doesn’t really have anything to do with the law. We hear all the time that immigration is good for the country, etc. etc. I had the signification of ‘platitude’ that is ‘a trite, hackneyed or commonplace remark’. As much as this line is repeated, to me anyway, it fits the bill.

        As for your second comment, I would offer to you an example in our very own country. We see libs move from blue states to red. Do those states stay red? No, they’re purple, many on their way to blue. Look at how the major immigrant groups’ kids voted (one generation away from the crap their parents ran from) – Asian-American, Hispanic-American, etc. overwhelmingly dim. There is something perverse about people in that they will leave one place where their habits have wrought destruction, find a new place and bring those same habits with them. I guess it’s the same old ‘the problem couldn’t be me’ issue.

        For the record, my grandmother was a LEGAL immigrant from Mexico. My grandpa’s (on that side) were from Mexico. Their kids (my aunts and uncles), with the exception of my mom, almost always vote dim.

  • Finrod

    Good post. I agree that immigration quotas are all but useless; what we need instead is a system that lets people in to look for jobs, but at the same time encourages people that can’t find jobs here to leave.

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com;http://news.unifiedpatriots.com/ Beaglescout

    Exactly so. And we should bring back places like Ellis Island to serve as a symbolic place of entry and admission to the US. The most important thing to do though is to get rid of Woodrow Wilson’s racist immigration quotas and let the free market and free people determine who enters the US and works here.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    “To allow those who came here illegally to be placed on such a path is
    both inconsistent with rule of law and profoundly unfair to the millions
    of legal immigrants who waited years, if not decades, to come to
    America legally.”

    Ted Cruz, the son of immigrants, makes an excellent point and my own wife who is a legal immigrant and opposes ‘amnesty’ has made the same point. Legalizing illegal immigrants is a slap in the face to legal immigrants. We need to be pro-immigrant, but that means to be pro-LEGAL-immigrant and consider their needs and issues.

    The proposal that would ” Deny them benefits until they are citizens. Ideally, I’d rather
    drastically cut back on our entitlement state to care only for the truly
    helpless, regardless of citizenship.” … will be seen a MORE anti-immigrant than denying amnesty. It is simply impractical if not impossible to deny immigrants govt services when they get them today – healthcare, education, etc. the simple fact is that we have a welfare state and Obama has EXPANDED IT by leaps and bounds and denying govt benefits to immigrants (a la Prop 187) was/is seen as racist. In fact, it would be called ‘anti-immigrant’ and we really shouldnt be. Obama is inviting immigrants to get food stamps, part of why food stamp use has doubled in 5 years. While we can and should stop that and not allow TANF for immigrants, when it gets to providing health like medicaid, then what? What about illegal aliens in the emergency room? You simply cant get away from the fact that needs will be there. So the ‘lets open the borders but close down the welfare system’ is a pipedream.

    We need to stop with the pipedream and face the reality. Claim that the immigration system of limited quantities of legal immigrants is inherently flawed is wrong. We had a limited immigration system from 1924 to 1964 and it worked. Countries like Australia do fine, with systems like point system immigration and proper enforcement of it. We even had it sort of work until the 1980s… what REALLY broke our system? AMNESTY. It incentivized millions more to come. And for 25 years we didnt enforce or stop that flow. The flaw has not been in laws on the books but our failure to enforce the laws.

    What is wrong with LEGAL immigration system is that we do not have enough employment based legal immigration, BUT the idea of throwing out the whole concept of visa limits is bizarre and mistaken. (Now there may be some ‘best and brightest’ categories where a numerical limit is not needed, but will you REALLY let all 150 million humans around the planet who want to come here next year in? And most of them dirt poor?)

    Legalizing illegal aliens and amnesty will not fix our problem. It will make it worse. Massive increases in immigration will make things worse, and not be helpful in our 7.8% unemployment economy. Accomodations to the realities of a broken system need to start That said, we might make accomodations for those here.

    The real fix therefore is NOT ‘open borders’ but a system that:

    1. Ends chain migration

    2. Enforces law at borders via vias tracking,real border security and interior via E-verify and making sure all those arrested have immigration status checked. no drivers licenses etc. for illegal immigrants that turn them into de facto immigrants.

    3. Increases employment based immigration, including a low-skill “Guest
    Worker Visa” – a visa that would do what the above proposal suggests:
    they can come and work and contribute but not become wards of the
    government.

    4. Allows those who are illegal immigrants to get in line for Guest Worker visa (but on limited quantity basis, there should be no open-ended amnesty and no favoritism).

    And last we do this … “Create an effective employment verification system
    that will prevent identity theft and end the hiring of future unauthorized workers; and,” … FIRST and only AFTER it is really working do we consider other actions.

  • checkmate2012

    #4 is the biggest problem I have with your solutions: “This is further Soviet-style economic central planning, ordering up “workers” as one orders bulk raw material. It is a despicable “guest worker program”, which formalizes the same underclass of non-citizen that immigration reform is designed to eliminate.”
    .
    Our immigration policy should advance our standing as a country, not the illegals regardless of how it happened. If we don’t have any priorties as to who is welcome here, why not just open the border completely? That makes no sense and propogates a myth that all immigrants are good for our country. An example is that if we give our 250K visas per year, they are quickly filled 90% with Iranians or Irish or Chinese or Mexicans.
    .
    The lottery system is stupid as it doesn’t fill a need of skills based immigrants nor enhance diversity as the majority of visas go to family chains. As it stands, the majority of Mexicans are under-educated and tax our school system. Hopefully you have read my post to see my other objections.