What should be done about illegal immigration?

Okay, here's something on Round 2 from the Senate (my comments at the end):
The Last Hope for Immigration Reform?
The Hutchison-Pence bill tries to bridge the immigration divide.
by Fred Barnes
07/25/2006 7:45:00 AM

SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON of Texas and Representative Mike Pence of Indiana introduced a compromise immigration bill on Tuesday that amounts to the last serious opportunity for broad--or "comprehensive"--immigration reform this year. The measure is a long shot, but it has the tacit support of President Bush. And key Republicans in the Senate and House appear willing to go along.

Its passage depends on two important players in the immigration debate. One is Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy. If he looks favorably on the proposal, then it has a chance of winning Democratic votes in the Senate. And it's likely to need them. The other player is the Hispanic lobby, the collection of groups that represent the interests of Hispanic citizens and immigrants, legal and illegal. If these groups merely decline to oppose the bill, its prospects will improve dramatically.

Hutchison and Pence have diverse backgrounds on the immigration issue. Hutchison voted against the comprehensive bill that was approved by the Senate this summer, a bill that many House Republican insist is too liberal and offers "amnesty" to illegals. Pence voted for border-oriented House bill last December that has no chance of gaining a majority in the Senate.

To break the deadlock, the two Republicans have come up with a measure with significant elements to please both houses and the president. Bush has consistently urged passage of a bill with three main elements: stepped-up border security, a temporary worker program (TWP), and a plan for allowing illegal immigrants to become American citizens. The Hutchison-Pence bill--or
Pence-Hutchison--would do all three, but not at once.

It would start with the buildup of law enforcement along America's southern border: more border guards, drug enforcement agents, helicopters, detention facilities, unmanned aerial vehicles, and miles of fence. This enforcement-only beginning is aimed to appeal to House conservatives.

Once a series of specific benchmarks were met and certified by the president--a two-year lag is expected--the guest worker program could start. Illegals in the United States would have to return to their home country to sign up at private "Ellis Island centers." If they had a job in the United States, they would get a tamper-proof ID card and quickly return to the States. After 17 years, they would be eligible to begin the process of gaining American citizenship. . . .
MORE HERE

And here is one of my favorite economist's response to it


July 26, 2006
More Amnesty Fraud
By Thomas Sowell

Just when it looked like the Senate Republicans had finally gotten the message that the American people in general, and their own supporters in particular, are outraged over amnesty for illegal aliens, some Republican Senators have come up with yet another disguise for amnesty -- and gotten bipartisan support, including Ted Kennedy and John McCain.

Under this new plan, its advocates claim, illegal immigrants would "have to leave the country" and re-apply to come back in legally and get on a path toward citizenship. It sounds good but on closer examination it turns out to be a fraud.

How long would the illegal immigrants have to leave the country? According to the Senate bill they "may exit the United States and immediately re-enter." In other words, do a U-turn and come right back. How is that for "tough" border control?

Nobody else gets into the United States that easily. You can say "tough" all you want and still be a wimp. Or a politician.

How long do the Senate Republicans think they can keep insulting the public's intelligence, with an election just a few months away?

Every gesture that the Senate has made toward controlling the border is one that they have backed into under pressure from an outraged public. The Senators' whole focus has been on what they could do for the illegal aliens, in order to win Hispanic votes -- and how they could camouflage it in order not to lose other votes.

Businesses that want cheap labor are also in favor of amnesty, under whatever name. So are citizen-of-the-world intellectuals, for whom national borders are just unfortunate relics of the past and illegal aliens are just like everyone else except for not having legal documents.

Nobody is just like everyone else, individually or collectively. Second-generation immigrants are not even just like their parents. Their crime rates are far higher than those of their parents who came here to work and who can appreciate the difference between what they had in Mexico and what they have here.

The second generation does not compare their lives here with how people live in Mexico. They compare their lives with the lives of other Americans -- and there are all sorts of people around to tell them that the difference is due to injustices that they suffer.

Some of the more doctrinaire free trade advocates see the free movement of people across national borders as being just like the free movement of goods. But, when you buy a Toyota, it doesn't issue demands that our automobile laws be in Japanese and it doesn't have little Toyotas that add to the crime rate or to the burdens of our school system.

Moreover, when a Toyota needs repair, it doesn't go to an emergency room and expect the taxpayers to pay for parts and labor.

Whoever buys a Toyota is expected to pay the full price of the car and its upkeep.

But employers of illegal immigrants get the benefit of cheap labor and leave it to the taxpayers to cover the costs of their health care, imprisonment and everything else.

Our schools pay the price not only in money but also in lower educational quality when children with a limited knowledge of English and a limited commitment to learning impede the education of other children.

People who argue about immigration in the abstract ignore the fact that there is no such thing as an immigrant in the abstract. Immigrants from some countries have twice the education of immigrants from other countries and the differences between how many commit crimes can be some multiple between one group and another.

The most fundamental question is: What is to decide how many immigrants from what countries are to be admitted to the United States? The laws of this country or the fait accomplis of illegal aliens?

Are the citizens of this country to be people committed to this country or people who go back and forth, who expect American culture to adjust to them instead of vice versa, and who are kept separate and disaffected by their leaders and by the multicultural cult? We already have too many Americans with no real commitment to this country and no willingness to defend it.
SOURCE

Actually the Senate bill may come closer to what I have suggested as a compromise--everybody goes home, but their employers can bring them back under a guest workers program. I personally think employers should be able to ask for whomever they want, and if they want the illegals back under a federally set guest worker program, I don't have a problem with them 'coming right back'. So, depending on how the Senate bill is written, I may disagree with Dr. Sowell on this one. I have rarely seen him this angry on one of these issues though.

I don't have a problem with the mandatory waiting period to apply for citizenship imposed on 'guest workers' who otherwise would have an advantage over those applying for entry who aren't in the guest workers program. I think after the waiting period, THEN they get in line with everybody else.

This should apply a standard of fairness to everybody.

Well, while I am on the pro-enforcement side of the debate, I think this is a bit harsh. You have to feed, clothe, etc. prisoners and that's one of the problems with the illegals we have now, and while some illegals definitely deserve prison time, I think most have not committed the kind of crime that warrents that. I prefer to boot them out, and implement policies that make it attractive for them to apply for legal entry and make illegal entry far more unattractive.

I sort of like the $1 million fine idea though as that would provide a means of seizing bank accounts and/or property of those who have acquired them illegally. And while I don't think that communities should be forbidden to provide social services to illegals or anybody else, I dislike a federal mandate that requires them to do so. (Everybody loses when emergency rooms, etc. shut down because they can no longer afford to provide mandatory free services.) I think anything we do to make being here illegally less profitable and more uncomfortable will go a long way toward stopping the flood of illegals coming.

Oh, and I think if we go the guest worker route, these temporary VISAs should have to be renewed every couple of months or every year or so like a driver's license so we keep track of those who are here on that program. There should be significant financial and/or other consequences for overstaying one's Visa in all cases too.

I have got just three letters for you of why all this is happening.
N.W.O.

Isn't that a wresting group?

I believe N.W.O. stands for New World Order.

This is a set of conspiracy theories which remarkably are held by both the looney left (that is far to the left of me) and the wacky right (that is far to the right of you).

Strangely the extreme right and the extreme left seem to be united in their fear of Jewish bakers.

Everything you should know about NWO...

Very interesting indeed.

Stupid

I shop at both Walmart and Costco, for different things.

The typical Walmart shopper is poor and searching to save pennies.

The typical Costco shopper is affluent and looking to save big $$$.

Now, Walmart will no longer be a place for lower income people in Chicago to save money.

Using Costco as an example is comparing apples to oranges.

And I'm not exactly sure how this relates to the thread topic.

cjh, And you'll forever be in the dark.

Chicago ain't California dumba--, they just think it is.

Personally I'd like to get back on topic, and figure out exactly what part of "illegal" these pro-borderhopper folks don't understand.

cjh must belong in the moron Bush group. He projects stupid stuff like them with regularity.

He wrote:
Chicago ain't California dumba--, they just think it is.

There is no disagreement on the meaning of "illegal".

We all agree...

Everyone who is living and working and raising families here should be legal.

Amen.

And can we say that you think EVERYBODY should be able to live, work and raise their families here and nobody should be turned away no matter how many come?

Or how many is too many? Don't you think that needs to be part of this debate?

And if you think we have to limit how many come at some point, what makes those who got here illegally somehow better or more needy than those who still want to come?

This short UPI story was in my e-mail this morning

"N.J. town cracks down on illegal aliens
By UPI Staff
United Press International
July 28, 2006

RIVERSIDE, N.J. (UPI) -- A New Jersey town has voted to punish employers who hire illegal immigrants and landlords who rent to them.

The Riverside council approved the ordinance unanimously at an often raucous meeting attended by 700 people, the Courier-Post reported.

"If you're not in this country legally, you are not in this town legally," Riverside resident Craig Robinson said.

Supporters of the ordinance say an influx of 1,500 to 3,500 undocumented workers from Brazil has strained Riverside's resources. Mayor Charles Hilton Jr. said that without the newcomers Riverside would have a population of about 8,000.

Not everyone at the meeting supported the ordinance. Ronaldo Empke, a Brazilian who has been in Riverside for two years, said immigrants face a lot of discrimination.

"If you read the history of Riverside, it was built on immigration," Empke said. "Why is it a problem now?"

Employers and landlords caught violating the law face fines of $1,000 or more. Employers could also lose licenses."
_________________________________________________

My problem with this again is in requiring employers or any other people with limited resources to do the job of law enforcement. There is no way that a small business or small potatos landlord can afford to do a full background check on every applicant for a job or an apartment or have the resources to identify falsified documents or recognize identify theft, etc.

It is reasonable to say that no employer should KNOWINGLY hire an illegal and no landlord or real estate broker should KNOWINGLY rent or sell to an illegal. I support that 100%. If a worker doesn't have the necessary documentation, then he is out of luck. I just don't think the employer or landlord should have to know whether the documentation is authentic and should not be punished for operating in good faith.

But there is also a huge hypocrisy when the taxpayer is expected to support illegals via free education and other social services via mandate of the courts but the government will punish employers and landlords for providing illegals with jobs and housing.

It is only a matter of time before the ACLU will start filing suits to prevent communities like Riverside from defending themselves too.

We do need a good immigration policy from Congress soon. So far we haven't seen one.

There had been a longer report about 'Riverside' in the Chcago Tribune some weeks ago (I think, I'd posted it), from some different agency - since it was published worldwide.

My problem with this again is in requiring employers or any other people with limited resources to do the job of law enforcement ...

Since we (officially) haven't been an immigration country (and according to the conservatives still aren't) - I think meanwhile - we never had such problems: everyone accepts that such has to be done by employers (well, mostly everone).
(Same with working allowances, taxes, health and social security etc etc.)

But let's pretend you are the employer, Walter.

I present you with professionally produced documents including social security number, birth certificate, and photo ID and you put me to work. Later, immigration authorities discover I used all phony documents.

Does your government fine you or revoke your business license or take you to jail for hiring an illegal?

They'd fine him. It would be Walter's responsibility to make sure his foreign workers have the proper work permit. (Of course, they'd fine the worker for the fraud, too.)

Apparently some in our USA local, state, and federal governments are going that route too. But do German citizens need work permits too?

I still personally have problems with employers being required to enforce the law because it falls under the category of unfunded mandates which, unless the public health and/or safety is at stake, I oppose. For instance I do not oppose a policy that requires a business to have emissions scrubbers if the business would otherwise release harmful emissions into the atmosphere. We all have to share that atmosphere.

And of course I do not oppose laws/policies that help enforce our laws and defend our borders.

But if employers and landlords are to be put in the position of law enforcement, I don't think that should be by unfunded mandate. The government should do the background check necessary for the workers to receive a work permit so that at least the employer only has to call one agency to verify the authenticity of the permit.

Then there is that problem of whether citizens should also be required to have work permits. A goodly number of independent Americans would probably object to that but it might be necessary. If Walter believes I am a German citizen, and I am not, then is he still liable for hiring an illegal?

Actually, the employer is fined more since he/she is the criminal in first place. (We had a lot of such cases/trials here before some countries from East Europe became new EU-members.