An out of left field compromise, with obvious problems down the road. But, just for fun let's pretend that the left would actually keep their word and not immediately move to change this.
We have X million illegal aliens in the US who are currently "employed", married to citizens, or otherwise have significant connections to the US.
We also have Y million illegal aliens who are none of those things.
So, here's the compromise.
1. We immediately finish constructing a border wall with entry points every 250 miles (or whatever).
2. We immediately deport all of Y, and take precautions to keep them from coming back in.
3. We immediately deport any illegal alien who is convicted of a crime.
4. We create an immigration status that allows X to remain in the US, legally work/pay taxes/drive but deny them citizenship except under certain, limited circumstances.
5. We identify the top 3-5 countries where illegal aliens come from and begin a process to provide appropriate aid to improve conditions in those countries. Enlisting the aid of neighboring countries in this process. This would NOT be exclusively throwing foreign aid money at the (corrupt?) governments, but a broad initiative using ONGs, direct aid/microfinance/clean water/help growing food/law enforcement help.
6. We establish simple, easily understood conditions for legally immigrating to the US and enforce them.
7. We separate asylum seekers from other immigrants and set up a separate process for them.
8. We work with other countries to provide immigrants with more options.
Offer other suggestions, bash away.
10 comments:
See? There are many areas of common ground that we could at least start with, if we weren't so partisan. Let's look...
We have X million illegal aliens in the US who are currently "employed", married to citizens, or otherwise have significant connections to the US.
Let's be clear. There are roughly SEVEN million undocumented aliens are ARE EMPLOYED (not "employed" with the scare quotes... they're just employed, hard working US residents, building our homes, caring for our children and our elderly, growing our food... EMPLOYED, and vital to our economy). Let's not confuse anything with scare quotes.
1. We immediately finish constructing a border wall with entry points every 250 miles (or whatever).
The "border wall" is a symbol for cowardly US conservatives, taught to fear immigrants and pointless, from an immigration point of view. Again, don't confuse the important with the irrelevant.
We could absolutely spend billions of dollars (ourselves, with YOUR money and MY money) to build walls that are meaningless from an immigration control point of view, but why waste money? Isn't that part of the conservative mantra... don't spend money on useless gov't programs?
2. We immediately deport all of Y, and take precautions to keep them from coming back in.
AFTER checking to see if they have refugee status, we could consider deporting that SMALL percentage of undocumented aliens who are not employed... but not the children, of course. Agreed? But indeed, if they are relatively well-off immigrants with no human rights reason to be here, but who are simply trying to cut line, let's send that SMALL minority back.
3. We immediately deport any illegal alien who is convicted of a crime.
Probably, as long as we're not talking about the misdemeanor of crossing the border in an inappropriate fashion. But any serious murderers, rapists, violent offenders, yes, we can agree to send them back, because of course. On the other hand, I'm not interested or worried about those "convicted" of speeding or other lesser charges... let's restrict it to serious crimes.
4. We create an immigration status that allows X to remain in the US, legally work/pay taxes/drive but deny them citizenship except under certain, limited circumstances.
Okay, that's fair and reasonable. We don't want to harm ourselves to penalize those who are merely seeking a better life. Common ground!
5. 5. We identify the top 3-5 countries where illegal aliens come from and begin a process to provide appropriate aid to improve conditions in those countries. Enlisting the aid of neighboring countries in this process. This would NOT be exclusively throwing foreign aid money at the (corrupt?) governments, but a broad initiative using ONGs, direct aid/microfinance/clean water/help growing food/law enforcement help.
Yes. By all means. Let's invest in our neighboring nations in rational ways that make sense both for them and for us. Why wouldn't we? Let's be sure not to fund corrupt nations that would, for instance, imprison journalists or human rights workers, of course. But reasonable investments in nations that are struggling and whose citizens keep seeking safety here? Yes, of course. Common ground.
Your numbers 6, 7 and 8? YES, of course, let's do that. Reasonable common ground.
Reasonable common ground that, unfortunately, many in your party will not agree to. But we can join together and work on them on those points.
Offer other suggestions, bash away.
It's not bashing, but...
A. Let's not demonize people who are simply seeking a safer, better life. Let's recognize the data that shows that, by and large, immigrants are not rapists, murderers, criminals or terrorists. They're just humans seeking a better way of life.
B. Let's rebuke those who talk about immigrants as if being a criminal, rapist, etc is the norm for immigrants, because that's just not the case, according to the data and basic reason. Let's remind those in our parties (Democrat, Republican and otherwise) who attempt to use language that suggests widespread criminality and evil intent in immigrants broadly, that this is unhelpful and indeed, harmful language that is not factual.
C. Let's review our US policies that have impacts on other nations honestly, to understand what part, if any, we have in destabilizing the economies and safety of other nations and if we owe these nations anything economically or morally, let's repay that debt.
For instance, if we destabilized other nations and committed war crimes in the process (as with Nicaragua), let's repay any debts we owe them. It's not the fault of average Nicaraguan citizens that we were fighting a proxy war with Russia within their borders. Those damages we caused should be repaid because paying reasonable debts is something that is reasonable and that conservatives and progressives can agree upon.
"We have X million illegal aliens in the US who are currently "employed", married to citizens, or otherwise have significant connections to the US."
I don't see how any of these conditions argue for amnesty if they all came illegally. They must also be scrutinized to determine if any allowance has justification. The problem doing giving these "connections" any legitimacy at all, certainly in general, will result in others coming illegally in hopes of availing themselves of the same considerations if they can secure an American spouse, job or any other "significant" connection to the US. This, indeed, has always been the problem with granting amnesty since at least the Reagan administration.
Now, we can start with the worst examples of illegal...the criminal, those unproductive, etc. But ALL illegals must consider themselves more likely than not deserving of deportation because the entered illegally.
Demonstrating their dishonesty, the progs in lamenting the illegals as all of them people fleeing unjust suffering of any degree, will remind us that first offenders of illegal entry are only misdemeanor offenses. Fine. But the penalty should be deportation upon discovery of having illegally entered...AFTER photographing, finger printing and establishing a documented record of their offense, which should never have a limitation statute.
I continue to consider the question and your other suggestions.
A. I have not "demonized" anyone i any way. Calling someone who has been convicted of a crime a criminal is not demonizing, nor is speaking specifically of those who commit crimes.
B. Stupid, unworthy of a response.
C. Sure, the possibility that you could possibly "review" policies in a fair an unbiased manner is amusing to anyone who's interacted with you, but sure.
I love how Dan always uses Nicaragua as his example as if the people and leaders of Nicaragua haven't inflicted most, if not all, of their current misery on themselves. It's ignore the leaders of Nicaragua who've despoiled their subjects and destroyed their economy. Let's ignore the fact that Dan and his ilk would like to eliminate fossil fuels, thereby depriving Nicaragua of a significant potential source of income.
"Let's be clear. There are roughly SEVEN million undocumented aliens are ARE EMPLOYED (not "employed" with the scare quotes... they're just employed, hard working US residents, building our homes, caring for our children and our elderly, growing our food... EMPLOYED, and vital to our economy). Let's not confuse anything with scare quotes."
1. This number is virtually impossible to be precise with, hence X. The actual number is insignificant.
2. We have no way to know precisely how many illegal aliens who are working are doing so legally. Hence the quotes around employed. It's making the point that we simply don't know precisely, and that it's not relevant.
1. No, it's not. It is the means to control, vet, and regulate the immigrants who want to enter the US. As long as millions of aliens choose to cross the border illegally, there needs to be a means to force them to cross in such a way as to control, regulate, and vet, those who want entry. Clearly you just focused on the wall, did your usual knee jerk reaction, and ignored the rest.
2. Dan's notion of "compromise" or "agreement" is to simply disagree with anything he doesn't like and posit the "compromise" as doing what he wants.
Nope, they can all get deported and if they want to try again, they are free to do so. There is no reason why those who violate the law should be preferenced over those who don't.
3. What part of crime do you not understand. If they want to try legally, then they can do so from out of the country.
4. Well, maybe.
5. Well it's common ground as long as Dan gets to determine the specifics of the deal. FYI, IMO this may mean (for example) sending the 82nd to Haiti, surrounding Port au Prince and cleaning out the gangs that are engaged in a reign of terror (which the MSM and APL ignore now that a month or two has passed), and facilitating a local government.
It's interesting, Dan has been quite clear that he refuses to agree to anything that doesn't fit his personal narrative, or the he can't define how he wants, but blames the GOP for not agreeing.
The point of this post, was to come up with a "plan" that gives both sides at least some of what they want, but that would be considered as a whole not parted out. Dan wants 6,7,8, without compromising on 1,2. Which negates the notion of a compromise, which is exactly how Dan, the MSM, the DFL, and the APL all roll.
"I don't see how any of these conditions argue for amnesty if they all came illegally. They must also be scrutinized to determine if any allowance has justification. The problem doing giving these "connections" any legitimacy at all, certainly in general, will result in others coming illegally in hopes of availing themselves of the same considerations if they can secure an American spouse, job or any other "significant" connection to the US. This, indeed, has always been the problem with granting amnesty since at least the Reagan administration."
1. In the context of everything else, this seems like something that might work without too much disruption.
2. I'm not suggesting amnesty as in zero consequences or free citizenship. I'm suggesting that we start by getting the ones who are not employed/criminals/etc out, then deal with the rest.
3. That might mean some sort of status that gives conditional residence/employment rights, but forbids a path to citizenship.
4. Had the dems not stabbed Regan in the back, who knows how things might have turned out.
"Now, we can start with the worst examples of illegal...the criminal, those unproductive, etc. But ALL illegals must consider themselves more likely than not deserving of deportation because the entered illegally."
Well, so much for a compromise.
OH! I never intended to imply I was willing to compromise on whether or not one who entered illegally can stay or not. I'm in favor of deporting all who crapped on our laws and sovereignty.
But I am most certainly in favor of discussing how to go about reversing this mess which has been so great exacerbated by the current administration. Just as I'm cool with an initial focus on ousting the worst of them, I'm totally concerned about those who have and still try to enter according to our laws. THEY get preference over those who didn't and no job, marital status or other connection established by such warrants giving them preference over those patiently waiting in line to enter by the book.
And if we're not going to give citizenship to any of these employed, married or connected illegals, what's the plan? Permanent work visas? Their presence still corrupts our system in terms of Congressional representation and other things.
In the end, the best plan of attack will no doubt result in a significant percentage actually enjoying amnesty...just as they had hoped, and again, any "compromise" will simply continue the cycle. It may be harder with other policies imposed, like a wall for example, but it will continue. Thus, if we're to "compromise" on how to deal with this, I insist the compromise must have a "never again" aspect to it. Let some stay? Fine, but never again should we allow those who defy our laws to remain, regardless of any connections, marriages or jobs taken. We can't have it.
It's possible that you are correct, that any compromise will "continue the cycle". It's also possible that a compromise will significantly reduce the flow of new illegal aliens and significantly improve how immigration is handled in the future. I guess the notion of allowing things to continue as usual while waiting for a consensus that will allow the prefect solution, as opposed to a compromise that might significantly improve the situation.
In the absence of one party dominating all three branches of government, which seems unlikely, it also seems unlikely that there will be the opportunity for anything but a compromise.
It's possible I'm totally full of shit, except for the problem that history backs my position. Amnesty results in more people crapping on our laws with the hope they will be among the next batch of contest winners who enjoy amnesty. It's got to stop now. Completely.
As to "compromise", it must all be focused on improving existing laws and policies...NOT ignoring the rank dismissal of our laws. Someone want to raise the number of legal immigrants (herein referred to as "immigrants")? We can have that discussion. You want to alter how many more of them to focus on aiding ACTUAL refugees and asylum seekers? Let's talk.
But the most glaring and destructive issue we confront right now is the hordes flowing in and what to do about THEM!! Immigration and/or refugee/asylum policy is a whole 'nuther thing. They are NOT the same.
"Amnesty results in more people crapping on our laws with the hope they will be among the next batch of contest winners who enjoy amnesty. It's got to stop now. Completely."
Given the total lack of any documentation of this claim, it's hard to take it too seriously. You'd need some sort of study that compared those who've come into the country illegally, gotten married, gotten jobs and who are participating in society in a constructive manner against all those in the US legally. You'd have to be able to track violations of all laws and compare the two groups. It seems an overstatement at best. Obviously, those who enter the US with the intent of committing crimes are a different matter entirely.
There is no magic formula that limits compromise in that way. As a general proposition, starting from the point that all laws must be kept and improved instead of replaced seems like a bizarre position to take.
You seem to have stumbled into my point. We can't have those discussions in a meaningful way until we secure the border, deport those who are "criminals" and figure out which of the "productive" immigrants should be allowed to stay. Realizing that we don't have the available labor force to fill the millions of jobs held by immigrants, plays a role in that.
The reality is that those discussions should not happen until we establish a baseline of controlled immigration and appropriate deportations without damaging the economy.
The glaring reality is that my #1 is the best and likely only way to stop the influx. That's why it's #1. It's simple triage, take care of the most pressing issue before moving on to anything else. Controlling the border to prevent unregulated immigration (#1) has to be the basis for anything further.
As for the rest, we all know that it's a virtual impossibility to deport every single illegal alien in the US. We all know that some sort of accommodation (absolutely short of citizenship) is going to have to be made. Given that, we have to be firm on items #1&2 on my list.
You're right that I so highly value being able to control our border and regulate future immigration that I am willing to consider compromising on past immigration. In addition to the Y group that should be deported without, our next biggest concern should be the Z group which is the one's who haven't crossed yet. Controlling future immigration must be the priority.
Thus, I'm willing to concede that an illegal alien who's lived here for 40 years, raised a family, held a job and been a reasonably trouble free/productive resident should be our third priority. That's the nature of a compromise.
To use a medical analogy, if groups y and Z represent gangrene on a leg, and group X represents a cold, I'll go to great lengths to stop the gangrene while likely not spending much time or effort on the cold.
Post a Comment