Most Americans will
agree that our immigration law is not working, but there is no agreement on how
we should change it, particularly on the issue of those who have entered the
country in violation of our laws. To be able to make any meaningful change, we
have to use some common sense and agree on these three points. First, each nation has the prerogative to
control immigration; there is no “right” to immigrate to another country. Secondly, we have to be practical when we
propose solutions. It may be one thing
to be legally correct, and yet another to propose something that might have
sufficient popular support to be enacted. Third, we are going to be innovative. “Business as usual” is not going to work.
Most proposed
solutions to this issue fit one of two categories. The first involves granting amnesty to those
who are in the country illegally. In an
economic climate with large numbers of unemployed and underemployed workers,
this is neither a realistic nor a moral option. Blanket amnesty has simply encouraged further illegal immigration. It is also unfair to those who have followed
the law and sought immigration through the proper channels. The second approach
is to insist that the government simply enforce the existing laws and deport
everyone who came here without the proper paperwork. This is even less likely to be carried out
than a general amnesty. The American
people would not agree to massive involuntary deportations. Just imagine, for a moment, the outcry when
the press reports, cameras rolling, some massive sweep in some real community composed
of real people, particularly when it involves children. It simply won’t happen.
The third is to devise
some sort of compromise which will avoid both extremes of massive deportations
and total amnesty. Every politician
proposing amnesty has made the promise that THIS amnesty will be the last; in
the future, we will enforce the law. We never do. This has made many citizens skeptical about
such intentions, and any compromise will have to address this perception. We will have to send the message that we are
no longer doing “business as usual.” We
should make a real distinction in law between those immigrants who have complied
with our laws and those who did not. Basic justice, a decent sense of fair play,
requires that somehow we favor those who obeyed our immigration law. I suggest that any future amnesty be offered
with limits, that we create a new legal status for those who were here
illegally that would differ from the normal resident alien status. The recipients would receive a form of
permanent “guest worker” status that would provide all necessary legal
protections, to include the right to live and work in America,
but it would be a dead end. They would
be permitted to remain in the country indefinitely, work and educate their
children without the fear of deportation, and they would be provided all the
protection of our legal system. The
difference would be that they would never be eligible for citizenship. Those who might wish to become citizens of
the United States
would have to start from the beginning and apply through normal channels for a
visa. We
might make an exception for those willing to serve in the military or some
other form of alternative civilian status but, otherwise, citizenship—and thus
the franchise—would not be an option.
This approach would
recognize that those who have shown no regard for our law should not have a
role in making those laws, and that those who did should, on the other hand, be
given all of the rights of any new citizen. It would provide a humanitarian approach for
those who can contribute to the economic welfare of the country, preserve the
integrity of their families, and allow them a new start in life. This should appeal to legislators who favor a
form of amnesty, even if it does not provide them with future voters since few,
if any, will take the necessary steps to citizenship. It should also satisfy those who oppose
amnesty, because it will not create, at least for this generation, a new crop
of voters. Perhaps, as was said of
Julius Caesar’s debt legislation, it is a good compromise because it neither
completely satisfies everyone, nor does it offend everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment