Tuesday, April 18, 2006

IMMIGRATION: WHAT’S THE ANSWER?

On Friday, April 14, 2006, the Washington Post had two editorials on immigration. One, by Eugene Robinson, was titled “My Immigration Solution”; I feel that Mr. Robinson’s solution is no solution at all! In his words, he “would not brand the current influx of immigrants (as) felons or build a fortress wall along the Mexican border.” After weighing all options, he sees the alternative of allowing a limited flow of immigrants across the border, thinking this could “change the current incentive equation”, increasing the number of legal immigrants allowed from Mexico and other South American countries. I believe this idea is a part of at least some of the proposals currently before Congress, but it cannot be the solution by itself. The number of legal immigrants allowed to enter the country must be based on our ability to assimilate them into our society. We need the desired growth rate for our country as well as our ability to produce the resources needed to support our total population.

The second editorial, by Charles Krauthammer, was titled “Immigrants Must Choose”. Mr. Krauthammer says the “Hispanic civil rights movement” needs to decide: “Are they ready to be welcomed into the American family as the last illegals -- or only as the first of many millions more?” I do not believe Congress should place much importance on this “Hispanic civil rights movement”. Those who are here legally already have all the rights of anyone else, and do not need any entitlement. We need to treat criminals and lawbreakers humanely, and ensure they have basic human rights, but the bottom line is that the illegal immigrant has broken the law, whether it is a civil or felony offense. One does not ask a lawbreaker if the law needs to be changed, or if we should allow the breaking of the law to go unpunished forever. The laws that are in place should be enforced. A federal officer should not feel bad about enforcing a law. One should not get mad at a police officer giving someone a traffic ticket, if that person was in fact breaking a traffic law. The illegal immigrant should have no say as to what our laws should be!

The foregoing, to me, is a lot of blether!

Gaining control over illegal immigration is a must! What is the solution? Our borders must be closed to illegal immigrants. It is vital to keep in mind that illegal immigrants are not all Mexican or Hispanic. Eugene Robinson, who would really like an open border, like most liberals has never accepted the fact that we are at war with terrorism. Some of the illegals who have come in along the Mexican border are originally from Asian and South American countries that are working hard at becoming enemies of the United States. We need to be able to identify all illegal immigrants as soon as possible, just from a security perspective.

We need to establish a date after which being an illegal immigrant is a felony. This date should be aligned with registering current illegal immigrants. Employers must have a quick and easy way of verifying that a worker is legal . Requiring all employers to use an automated employment verification system is the way to go. This system exists, but needs to be implemented. After the implemetation date the employer must report any illegal immigrants currently employed, or those who apply for work. This raises the risk to the illegal of being caught. We have to convince the would-be immigrant that it is not worth his risk to come into the United States illegally. This will do a lot to ensure a legal workforce.

We should erect whatever is needed in the way of walls, fences, etc. along our Mexician border, and add new surveillance systems for border patrol.

We should plug any loopholes in exiting laws, ensuring that those who arrange and assist in illegal immigration are prosecuted and convicted. These changes should take place no later than the end of the amnesty period.

Now, what should we do with the countless numbers of illegal immigrants already in the U.S.? Our government is partly to blame for the magnitude of the situation, because they have not enforced existing laws. Our current immigration facilities could not handle deporting them, or even being able to identify them in a short period of time. This needs to be considered when changing the law associated with those already here. It is not feasible to deport 12 million people! Nor is it fair to automatically make them all legal, with no penalty for having broken the law, and put them on an equal footing with those who have already gone through the current naturalization process to become legal residents. Neither is it fair to give preference to Hispanics over any other nationality. And whatever we do, we must not push the illegal deeper into hiding or into an even more dangerous underground existence. Although most Americans hate the word amnesty, it seems to me the only reasonable approach is to come up with an amnesty program such as the Senate has proposed for the current illegal immigrants. However, any amnesty program must have a cutoff date, corresponding with the date for changing the penalty for illegally entering the U.S. from a civil to felony offence. I would implement an amnesty program for a one-year period, after which any illegal immigrant would be liable to prosecution to the full extent of the law.