For the past few weeks there has been an uproar surrounding immigration policy. On the one hand, it is maintained, truthfully, that immigration is an important part of our national survival, while on the other there is a virtual invasion of illegal immigrants entering the United States at an alarming rate. Much of the debate rages over what to do with the nearly 12 million illegals currently estimated to reside in the U.S. and how to deter further breaches of the Immigration act.
There is no one that would seriously suggest deporting the illegal immigrants now living in the U.S., as the logistics of such a move would be a nightmare and the cost, both in terms of cash outlay and economic impact would be prohibitive. On the other hand, is it morally, ethically or legally right to just grant a blank amnesty to illegal immigrants in much the same way such an amnesty was granted by the Reagan administration in 1986? Back then, the estimated number of illegals was somewhere in the one million range and the Immigration Reform and Control act of 1986 (IRCa) did nothing to discourage further illegal entry. We can now gain a realistic view of just how poorly the IRCa worked in dealing with the problem.
There also appears to be a new element that has entered the debate on immigration. With literally thousands of people demonstrating against immigration reform both in terms of controlling entry into the U.S. and identifying and naturalizing those currently here illegally, the message these demonstrators are sending appears to be that there should be no immigration controls at all. In fact, many of the demonstrators in places like Southern California, arizona and New Mexico paraded on the streets with prominently displayed Mexican flags, as if to say that part of the world should rightfully be a part of Mexico.
The Mexican government has also weighed in on the issue, maintaining that the U.S. has no right to control its borders and has threatened to go to the International Court of Justice on the matter. This appears to be particularly confusing in light of the policy that the Mexican government itself has with respect to illegal immigrants. Having visited Mexico on numerous occasions, I required an entry visa during each visit, which had to be surrendered to Mexican immigration authorities upon my departure. During one such visit I happened to lose my tourist visa and found myself in a heap of hot water as a result.
The message here, both on the part of the protesters as well as opponents of an immigration law with teeth is that the U.S. does not have a moral, legal or ethical basis on which to restrict entry into its borders. all other nations, on the other hand do have that right.
There is currently a sizable movement in Mexico and the Southwestern U.S. that wants to see parts of California, New Mexico, arizona, Nevada and Texas return to Mexican control. In fact, proponents of this scheme call this area aztlan, meaning "home of the aztecs". This movement presents a threat to the territorial integrity of the U.S. that should be taken seriously and met with serious resolve. There is too much at stake to risk allowing a successful invasion of the Southwest through the unchecked infiltration of illegals.
What is needed is an immigration law that is clear and concise and deals with the issues of illegal immigrants once and for all. The Kennedy-McCain law has some major shortcomings, not the least of which how the act proposes to deal with illegals currently here. The proposed law would allow illegals currently here to remain here for a period of six years, after which they could apply for permanent status. In addition the illegals would be forced to pay a $1,000 fine and be subject to a criminal background check.
Critics of this provision of the act say that it amounts to another amnesty, a fact that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass) hotly disputes. "There is no moving to the front of the line, there is no free ticket. This is not amnesty." apparently, Mr. Kennedy believes that a rose by any other name is not a rose. as such he denies that the amnesty is an actual amnesty.
But the larger question is just how well would such an amnesty work? If illegals come here to take low-paying menial jobs, wouldn't a $1,000 fine be prohibitive? In addition, if many of these illegals have been here for a decade or more, what would motivate them to apply for the non-amnesty, if they haven't been caught and if there is no deterrent to being caught in the future? Illegal immigrants make up approximately 4% of the entire U.S. population and as such present a daunting problem. But ignoring or fast-tracking that problem will not make it go away. In place of a carte blanche amnesty for all illegal immigrants, it might be good policy to allow all illegals currently living in the U.S. to apply for landed status and then determine their eligibility on a case-by-case basis. Those who fail to apply will face immediate no-questions-asked-deportation if they are caught.
The new immigration law must protect our borders in a meaningful way and have provisions for discouraging illegal immigration. It's one thing to make it illegal to enter the U.S. without proper documentation, it's quite another to enforce that law. So in order for the new immigration law to be successful, the government must allocate sufficient resources to enforce that law. The borders will need to be patrolled in a more thorough manner and those nabbed in the act of illegally entering the U.S. should be immediately arrested.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) will require substantially more manpower to fulfill its mandate. Until such time as the INS can be brought up to full force, the army or the National Guard should be patrolling the border. If necessary, the U.S. must have the political courage to erect barriers between the two nations to make illegal entry more difficult.
The act must also contain provisions to punish those in breach. Employers must be given a way of checking the legitimacy of potential employees and those convicted of willfully hiring illegals should be punished with fines and/or incarceration. Workers who are in the country illegally should be deported when arrested the first time and sentenced to jail time if caught more than once.
a guest worker program is a bad idea. In the 1950s and 60s, Europe's economy was booming and workers were scarce. So Europeans encouraged "guest workers" from places like Turkey and North africa to come on a temporary basis. The guest workers then became de facto citizens, as they took wives, had children born in Europe and ultimately refused to leave. as a result, the fabric of European society changed to a degree that not even the most prescient of immigration experts could foresee. With a guest worker program in the U.S., a similar fate would befall this nation.
We already have an immigration law in place. The problem with it is that it is not being enforced. The only flaw with the current law appears to be that being in the country illegally is a civil offense, rather than a criminal offense. as such an amendment that would add teeth to that part of the law would be in order. But most importantly, we must have the intestinal fortitude to fully enforce our laws. Immigration laws are enacted as a form of defense and are important in that regard, particularly in today's climate of global terrorism. However, no new laws will improve our current immigration problems if we do not have the resolve to see that they are enforced.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement