Several states have
passed legislation to attempt, at the state level, to manage the influx of illegal
immigrants,’ ‘undocumented workers,’ or whatever other terms the chattering
classes may yet devise. Almost all
Americans agree that the current situation is unacceptable, but that is the
extent of our agreement; there is no general consensus on how to change it. We have to devise some method to control the
influx of immigrants to this country, particularly those who do so in violation
of our laws.
I think we have to
agree on the following matters. First,
each nation has the right to control immigration; there is no “right” to enter
another country and live there.
Secondly, we have to deal in practicalities when we propose
solutions. It may be one thing to be
legally correct, and yet another to realize that it will never have sufficient
popular support to be enacted. Third, we
are going to have to be willing to think in an innovative manner. “Business as usual” is not going to work.
Any proposed
solution to the issue can be put into one of three categories. The first is total amnesty for those who are
in the country illegally. In this
economic climate, with a large percentage of the workforce unemployed, whether
off the books or not, and even larger numbers underemployed, this is simply not
a realistic option, nor is it a moral one. Furthermore, amnesty for those currently in
the United States
does nothing to prevent the problem from recurring. In fact, amnesty encourages further illegal
immigration to the country. It is also
very discouraging to those who have followed the law and sought immigration
through the proper channels.
The second, more popular on the right, is to
simply deport everyone who came here without the proper paperwork. This approach might allow its advocates to
claim that all they are advocating is that the government should enforce the
laws that have already been enacted, but this is even less likely to be carried
out than a general amnesty. The American
people would not agree to massive involuntary deportations. If you think it will, just imagine the outcry
when the press reports, cameras rolling, some massive sweep of some real
community composed of real people. It is
also too simplistic; what will happen to the children—often citizens by right
of birth—whose parents are abruptly deported for no reason other than failing
to have the proper papers. It simply
won’t happen.
The third is to devise
some sort of compromise which will avoid massive deportations but somehow
control present and future immigration. Of course, each new change to the law has
included the promise that THIS amnesty will be the last; give us this amnesty
and, in the future, we will enforce the law, but we never do. This consistent failure by our government to
live up such promises has made many citizens skeptical about such intentions,
and any compromise will have to address this perception. There are several possible improvements that
would meet this criterion, but I am proposing one that I think would be the
best for sending the message that things have changed, that we are no longer
doing “business as usual.”
The law must make a
real distinction between those immigrants who have followed the proper
procedures and have complied with the existing laws and those who did not. Basic justice, a decent sense of fair play,
requires it. It is simply not right to
tell those potential citizens that we are sorry for whatever inconvenience or
even hardship they may have endured, but that we now intend to reward those who
flouted the law so brazenly by giving them the same consideration, the same
privileges. Therefore, I suggest that
any such amnesty be offered with limits; that we create a new legal status for
those who were formerly here illegally that would be different from the normal
resident alien status. I will be honest;
I did not think of this proposal in a vacuum.
It was inspired by the laws relating to non-citizens of Athens
or those in Republican Rome holding the “Latin Right.” They 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 with the security that they would not be deported, unless they
committed a crime that would allow the deportation of any resident alien, and
they would be provided the protection of our labor laws. Freed of any threat of deportation, they
could avail themselves of the courts to seek redress for abuse. The difference is that it would not provide a
path to citizenship. Those who wish to
pursue the path to future citizenship in the United
States would have to start from the
beginning and apply through normal channels for a visa. We might amend the current law to allow them
to do so while remaining here in America
under their new status, but they would have to start over. We might choose to make an exception for those
willing to serve in the military or some other form of alternative civilian
status but, without applying for regular status, citizenship—and thus the
franchise—would not be an option.
This simply
recognizes that those who show so little 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 a citizen insofar as the Constitution permits. 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