A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
June 10, 2006How Immigration Oughtta BeI think we should grant permanent residency status to any non-felon who applies who has a job or is married to or the kid of another resident and revoke it only if all of the above stay untrue for a year. A 120-day job search visa should be handed out to anybody at most every four years. The naturalization wait for residents should be reduced to a uniform three years for everybody, not just residents married to citizens. People already in the system should have their total wait reduced to three years, and be granted citizenship if they've been waiting longer. That'd mirror reality in terms of immigration without being unfair to people already in line or rewarding illegal behavior. There'd be no need for anything amnesty-like or a guest worker / bracero program with this kind of reform. The current immigration situation reminds me of 55-mph speed limits. It's only reasonable in some areas, and encouraged scofflaws outside the crowded states. It was reasonable in Maryland, (which I think has just one faster-than-55 expressway segment out in the sticks), but not Texas. Well, something seems wrong to me when over ten million people are outside the law, and immigration rules have gotten so complicated and hard as to be very hard on those who want to go legit. If we're less liberal than that, or continue to use different bases for deciding who gets in, we'll continue to have lots of illegal immigrants. Remember, clearly, saying we want certain numbers and kinds of immigrants isn't having much of an effect. All it's doing is limiting highly educated immigrants - the kinds of immigrants who most favorably affect our society. Bias alert: I work for a company created by a very clever and entrepreneurial legal immigrant. Posted by Jon Kay at June 10, 2006 10:24 AMComments
This might be a curse coming from me: a great idea. And let's add another track for talented people who for various non-criminal reasons over stayed their visas. You could add some penalties to appease the anti-amnesty wing (who often sacrifice their "Lesser Principles" at times for the succcess of their "greater principles"). Make a person who stayed here legally for two or more years (of the "five" years required stay in the Congressional proposal), is working and and has never been arrested to go back "home"? That's all America needs- a shadowy fifth column. Some estimate a deportation program, a labor enforcment program and the great wall to cost more than a trillion dollars. Want to bet the economic contribution from illegals still exceeds that? Simply letting in every non-criminal alien wouldn't be too smart. That is why a guest worker program would let Mexicans be Mexicans yet work here in border states. Other work visas are already available, but are difficult for business to afford the time and money. Portability (for qualified aliens) might be a better answer. Otherwise employers might as well outsource. I am stuck by less liberal attempts to disconnect border security from this part of the immigration issue. Personally, I think diversity and demographics are a national asset to be tended. Economics and National Security leads the US priority list. Decriminalizing the status of millions of contributing, educated and patriotic aliens (many with family here) adds to the health of both these principle priorities. It eliminates "just" a guest worker program forcing educated aliens into gardening work. It eliminates business hiding from government. It is the PR counter weight to controlling our borders and would certainly contribute the GDP necessesary for building that great wall. The guest worker program is also the key, I think, for winning Mexican and Central America's support for any great wall. uh-oh....I can hear the breaches locking... DUCK!!!!! Posted by: maxtrue at June 10, 2006 12:13 PMThe only exception I would take to this proposal is that rather then "granting" citizenship after 3 years, I would go with "allow application for citizenship" at that point. But leave the requirement to pass a test on American government (they do still have that, don't they?), in English, to actually get citizenship. Otherwise, an entirely reasonable approach to the whole issue. Posted by: wj at June 10, 2006 01:43 PMmaxtrue: Sounds excellent to me, though hopefully an easy-to-get work-search visa would cut down on this problem. Though now that I think about it again, higher-end jobs take longer to find. So it might be needed too. > Simply letting in every non-criminal alien wouldn't be too smart. But they're already here. At least, all the ones interested and able to find jobs are, which happpens to be what my plan covers. > DUCK!!!!! HEY!! We don't allow ducks in this blog. It's a liability problem in case somebody goes hunting them ;-). wj: Oh, yeah, forgot about that. I can live with keeping that. HEY!! We don't allow ducks in this blog. It's a liability problem in case somebody goes hunting them ;-).No, we updated that policy, Jon. Anybody can hunt ducks, as long as they don't invite Dick Cheney. Ba da bam... [ok, so it was the obvious joke... so sue me] Im sorry, but this is absolutely insane. I am a fiscally conservative, socially liberal centrist and I think this idea just plain stinks for American as a whole. You just drop an extra 5 million people onto the already over burdened welfare system just like that? Thats what you are doing when you start increasing immigration and making the illegals legal. Our healthcare system cannot handle the people already here, the roadways in the major cities are over taxed and there is no room for improvement in most areas. The police are overworked and by allowing 5 million more people PER YEAR which is about what this plan would do to migrate to our country, our jails would fill up. Poor people commit the most crimes. Thats a fact of life. They always will. I have a better idea - take the 500 billion dollars this would cost use over the next 5 years and build some industry in Mexico. We all know the Mexican government wont do a thing for its citizens, so we might as well. Posted by: Dan at June 12, 2006 09:43 AMWell, needless to say, I disagree, for reasons states here. However: Bias alert: I work for a company created by a very clever and entrepreneurial legal immigrant.What do you mean by this remark? Posted by: Simon at June 12, 2006 09:48 AM By the way: The naturalization wait for residents should be reduced to a uniform three years for everybody, not just residents married to citizens.This isn't true. The naturalization wait for persons married to citizens is five years from granting of permanent residency (which is not necessarily the date of entry). Posted by: Simon at June 12, 2006 09:53 AM Dan grumbled: Likelier to be more like a few hundred thousand after ten years. Remember that the terms of the proposal require jobs. There'd probably be a few million more kids in school. But, for that, I give you a likely over ten million in ten years on the tax rolls who aren't now, since probably the overwhelming majority of illegals would go legal. A lot of those overcrowded roads and overworked police are so because they serve many illegal immigrants that don't pay taxes. Plus, the immigration system is designed to help with integration, so we'd see fewer problems with people knowing no English or anything of our customs or traffic laws. Said new tax base also would help alot with the Social Security / Medicare deficits.
It's just declaring that I have a natural reason to favor immigrants, since they're treating me well at the moment. Of course, I got it a little wrong, since it was actually a small team of legal immigrants, of course, not just one. > This isn't true. The naturalization wait for persons married to Whoops! I seem to have been relying on an old document. Jon Kay, you seem to think we are all against immigration because we are against increasing it. That does not seem the case here. I personally am against changes because they would all come from Mexico, a country, which as a whole has been snubbing its nose at the laws of the US for many many years now. And I also think that any illegal immigrant which is caught should not only be changed with a crime, but deported with no chance at reentering legally. If I go into MExico illegally, I am looking at 15 years in a Mexican prison. The illegals here are looking at nothing. Posted by: Dan at June 13, 2006 07:49 AMDan, you're wasting your breath. These folks just cannot see the problem. They probably don't actually know any illegal immigrants so this is just an intellectual exercise for them. I'm sorry if that sounds curt, but I'm about fed up. These illegal immigrants from Mexico don't want to become Americans. They don't want to pay taxes. They don't want to pay for health insurance. They don't want to learn English. They're poor, ignorant, and are simply seeking a job and the free education and heathcare that are available here. Allowing them to remain (and to continue to enter) will indeed bust the paltry safety net we have left. TALK TO THEM if you don't believe me. Posted by: Serfer at June 13, 2006 06:39 PM Dan said: I invite you to find support for that idea in what I've actually written. Good luck, you'll need it. > I personally am against changes because they would all come from I was thinking we should charge Iraqi immigrants for all that expensive war fighting in our invasion. After all, their country, their dictator, their war, right? Very fair. Oh, wait..... Serfer Of course. I live in Texas, so I know no illegal immigrants at all. BZZTT!!!!!!!! If you want to convince people on this blog of anything, you'll have to bring facts rather than suspicions. > These illegal immigrants from Mexico don't want to become Americans. If that's true, then what do you care about my plan? If nobody applies for citizenship then my plan makes no difference. Posted by: Jon Kay at June 13, 2006 10:07 PMJohn Kay, Seeing Mexican day labourers on the side of the road, or having them mow your yard or roof your house, does not qualify you as "knowing" an illegal immigrant, even if you do live in Texas. You have to actually talk to them, maybe form a relationship even, to get past their natural reluctance to say anything that might get them "in trouble" with the gringos. Your plan assumes that illegal immigrants will actually follow whatever rules you define. My point is that they will not as they really don't care and they know they will not be punished for not doing so. A 120-day job search visa for a day labourer who doesn't have a clue where his paycheck is coming from tomorrow? Proof of residency? Easily and frequency forged. And who, exactly, will be enforcing your proposed visa stays, and how? Your underlying assumptions must be questioned. The poor do not have the luxury of posting their ideas online. Have you ever tried to live on less than $10K a year? They don't care about our laws -- they're simply looking to put food on the table and maybe keep the electricity on so their kids don't die of heatstroke. I'm not trying to pick on you or your plan. It's great that you are giving this problem some thought and are engaged in being part of the solution. It's just my frustration showing. The overwhelming disconnect on this issue is astounding. The opinions of anyone who has real experience -- doctors or nurses in emergency rooms or charity clinics, people living near the borders, social workers, lawyers and peace officers, border patrols -- are too easily dismissed as being xenophobic and unreasonable. I am overwhelmed by the misperception that these folks will be able and willing to follow some set of rules, if only we could codify the "right" rules. Employers must be held accountable and the border must be closed. Think about it. Please. Posted by: Serfer at June 14, 2006 09:25 AMThey already arent following the rules. When your teenager ignores your rules, do you just give him more rules to ignore? Or do you punish him? Posted by: Dan at June 14, 2006 03:20 PMJon Kay said: "I invite you to find support for that idea in what I've actually written. Good luck, you'll need it." I didnt see you write that, but your tone, like the tone of many who support an open border policy supports that fact. You are from Texas, big deal, Texas is a big state with only one side bordering Mexico. I lived among illegal and legal Mexicans and Chinese for quite a while. I saw how the illegals are raping this country. Oh, go ahead, I know you want to call me a racist now, so do it and then I will make you look foolish. Posted by: Dan at June 14, 2006 03:41 PMSimon said: > Bias alert: I work for a company created by a very clever and entrepreneurial legal immigrant. > > What do you mean by this remark? Jon, Simon, I whole-heartedly agree with you on that last point. A view on legal immigration does not hve to be coupled with a view on illegal immigration. The topics are polar opposites and do not nessecarily correlate with each other. Posted by: Dan at June 15, 2006 09:19 AMSorry I've been too busy to comment. Yes, Dan, your comment does seem racist to me. At the least, you're stereotyping. Serfer: I don't think you're being xenophobic, just maybe a little too fearful. If your email addr says anything about your occupation, I can see why, though. You're right that illegal immigration poses huge problems and challenges to all of society. See, here's the thing: right now, they're here, and things are the way they are. How can them lying on forms be worse than that? Among other things, I believe my plan would mean more jobs at American labor standards and American minimum wage. That's because many of them would be citizens, and many others would be much more able to walk from unreasonable jobs. A nice side-effect is that native-born workers could compete more easily with immigrants then, though I won't pretend it'd be easy. Simon and Dan: "Imply?" Sigh. It's a free country. You can suspect me of whatever you damned well please! Enjoy! Just don't get too far out of hand - it is a family blog. |
Archives
July 2008
June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
July 4: Gasbag Edition
Independent Open Thread: Whatcha Doing This Weekend? Long Tail Controversy and Explanations Canadian Human Rights Commission No, Slavery Wasn't Competive With Free Labor Back online Irish Blogger Charged For Blogging Friday open thread Headline: Obama and Clinton Together in Unity There Is No EPA Document, There Is No EPA Document
|
