You've finally written an immigration post I can't argue with. Did I just lose my wingnut credentials?

Dafydd,

This sounds like a winner to me. I'd add a provision that withholds all federal tax money (and this means SSA and other "entitlement" related payments that go to state and local governments too) from states, counties, or cities that refuse to check for alien status and hold violators for ICE deportation procedures.

A number of people (such as Charles Krauthammer) have proposed that we build the wall first, and then, only after it's shown to be working, legalize the illegals already here.
**************************************************
That is really tunnel vision, without registration, without enforcement of Laws prohibiting employment and aiding and abetting illegal aliens to evade the Law and without real efforts to deport illegals who do NOT register, the wall won't work,

BTW I got to thinking about one of your earlier statements.

"There are two basic camps on immigration; the came you choose typically determines your positions and priorities.

Illegal immigrants are essentially criminals.

Illegal immigrants are essentially thwarted freedom-seekers.

There is an interesting geographic dispersal about these camps: the first is primarily found in states that have very few illegal immigrants, the second primarily in states that have a very large illegal population -- though of course there are campsites of each in each type of state."

You think that dichotomy MIGHT be due to the fact that aliens, legal and illegal are counted in apportionment for the House of Representatives?

That such States as California,which receives three extra representatives for the 2 million illegal aliens who call it home. So that Montana which has a population of 990K gets only one seat in the zero-sum game of congressional apportionment. Indiana, Michigan, and Mississippi are also shy a seat in the House because of illegal aliens residing elsewhere, according to a new report by the Center for Immigration Studies.

After this has worked for a while (assuming it does), only then do we talk about legalizing the illegals.

How about this? Is this acceptable to hard-core immigration conservatives?

*************************************************
Differs from my concept only in that I suggested a two phased guest worker program

i) ONE with a track to citizenship that could only be applied from outside the US

2) one with no track to citizenship that could be applied for while still here.

Mainly because I did not believe those with very low paying jobs could afford to leave and come back, nor would their jobs be waiting I am not even certain they could pay the fines mentioned, without resorting to criminal activity to raise the funds,

My concepts also included systematic criminal prosecution of businesses that hire illegals you have that but I see nothing about deporting anyone.

Ahhhh... at last you recognize the plight of those who are trying to follow our laws! Thank you for addressing this! Your proposal has a ton of merit, and I'd support it in a heartbeat. Tweaks?

I would add to #4 dropping a hammer on ANY agencies paying illegals, whether they be evil corporations or Government Agencies... I'm undecided whether we should address the Churches which have declared themselves as Sanctuaries for Illegal Immigrants like the Seattle Catholic Archdiocese... but the best help anybody can provide these folks is a way to enter the US legally.

And then your proposal neglects the numbers. No Nation can accept unlimited numbers of immigrants... obviously we are not allowing in (or at least not processing) enough immigrants legally, and by an order of magnitude, I'm sure. What sift should we use (if any) to determine the cutoff? I'd say a Lottery, but with Millions of winners, not just the current paltry 50 thousand.

We should fix border security first then open immigration as needed to fill jobs and provide refuge to persecuted people.

A Guest worker program is unneeded and is a bad idea.

The problem with guest workers is that the US could develop a large population of people who's loyalty was to another country. There is a danger in developing population of unasssimilated people who have no desire or intention to assimilate and who have no interest in preserving or maintaining the culture that we and so many people from around the world value. Ths danger is demonstrated in France by the riots it had and other problems it has (such as unpolicable enclaves) with its unassimilated immigrants.

If we are going to allow people to live here for an indefinate period of time we should only take people who want to become Americans because they value the American way of life. There are uncounted millions of such people around the world who would be elated to fill our labor needs.

Dafydd,

I've been giving this some serious thought while my hands were busy with other things and I still can't see anything to argue with you about. The very most important thing that needs to happen is to start building that wall (dam's a good word too) immediately. I don't think you realize how fed up and angry a lot of legal Americans living near our southern border are getting and how close they are to taking the law into their own hands. If that happens, it won't be because of illegals settled into jobs in our inland, or even upstate California, cities; it will be because of thefts, slaughtered cattle, cut fences, and general trashing of the environment between the border and those destination cities. I just finished posting the second of those two "Rurik" posts I promised earlier. See Rurik's response to "Creeping Amnesty" and Rurik's thoughts on "What Bush fails to see at the border". Rurik is historian and professional author George Mellinger. I envy both his historical knowledge and his writing ability and I'm thrilled he allowed me to post those two pieces. The second one's a bit of a worst-case food-for-nightmares thing that I'd like to think could never happen but I can't say I'm sure; I'd be a lot more confident with a 2,000 mile wall in place. Then we can start talking about what to do about the illegals already here.

I can go along with this. I know we had disagreements previously but this along with a couple of the suggestions above (no federal money for local or state govt entities which don't follow the law, criminal consequences for businesses that knowingly hire illegal). I would also look to change legal immigration requirements from a policy where the emphasis would be an ability to work from the current policy of family connection. This policy was changed in th mid 1960's.

Why can't our senators come up with a rational program like this? Although I doubt it will do any good, I am going to forward your plan to my representatives.

While my ideas are different, yours are acceptable and intelelctually honest. That distinguishes you from a great deal of the blogosphere right now.
If legislation came up that looke d what you describe, I would support it gladly.
Yours is a voice of informed reason, a rare thing these days. I am glad to see that of course this is coming from SF people.

Dafydd -

Good proposal. The one thing left out - and maybe the most critical thing - is the roll of the federal courts in creating the current mess. They have been getting a free ride for decades. Yet they were the ones over the last 30-40 years that put the children of illegals in the public schools, tossed the English-only laws, put illegals on the public dole (welfare, etc.), and have systematically tossed out as civil rights violations every single state and local effort to solve the problem via legislation and ballot initiative. Whatever is passed must restrict the role of the courts in this realm so that the problem can be fought out and solved by our elected representatives.

I would expand legal immigration greatly, but make "basic" English language proficiency an absolute requirement for all legal immigrants to the United States. English required, except in those cases where a family member (parent for example) is reuniting with an adult family member (over 21) who is already an American citizen and takes full responsibility for the non-English speaker's support. If legal immigration was far easier for English speakers, I could even foresee current illegal immigrants, working in America, going back to Mexico for example, to apply for legal immigration for someone with high English-proficiency. When the number of immigration applications gets too high, then increase the level of language proficiency required. Limit it that way.

one of the chief reasons all previous immigration reform has failed, and this one(congress) will also, is we combine border security with the specific details and amendments to remedy the causes and effects of illegal immigration. my hope is that over the two week easter break the congress people will get a earful from their base. it is very clear that the majority of folks want a fence--not just 700 miles--put up first before we move on to the more difficult discussions.

the canard about the fence being too expensive is being put aside what with the cost of 10 billion for a levy system around new orleans, that will surely flood again, to protect 500,000 residents
vs a fence to protect 300 million against the associated costs of rampant illegal immigration. we have to concentrate our efforts on rapidly erecting a fence.

http://www.weneedafence.com/images/Fence_Idea.jpg

we are now in our fourth week of this discussion, meanwhile 40,000 more have crossed the border. after the fence we can discuss the pros and cons of punitive enforcement issues etc--not before!
we have to focus our efforts on sealing the border otherwise we are going to continue circling the drain.......

This proposal prompted a trackback for gringoman cartoon: "Globalismo Foxybush." (Attempted, anyway.)

Too little too late from my perspective. The time is long past to try to get the genie back in the bottle. I cannot speak for other regions of the country, but here in California (and Arizona where I spend several months a year)more and more products are appearing on store shelves with Spanish language. Stores of all stripes are posting Spanish language signage, Spanish language radio and tv stations are proliferating, recent demonstrations across the country and especially the turnout in Los Angeles, I believe, is indicative of things to come. I'm all for Dafydd's proposal with one addition, unless I missed it, the first and easiest proposition to accomplish is to put an end to the anchor baby problem, that alone draws untold tens of thousands of illegals annually and it's just plain insane to allow such nonsense to continue. I suppose I'm the eternal pessimist but I don't see an end to the problem. It seems to me that our government is conspiring with the Mexican government to relinquish the lands Mexico lost to the U.S. Ironic that the Mexicans did nothing to stem the the flood of Americans into their territory until it was too late to turn the tide. I think we're witnessing history repeating in reverse.

Guest Workers are a bad idea.

In addition to the reasons given by mbnyan, GW are second class citizens. They should not exist in this republic. Look at how well Guest Workers have worked out for the Europeans. And it is not just because of European bigotry. There is no reason for the worker to assimilate. But the children they bear will be US citizens.

Yes, absolutely. I'd also like to see English as the officail language of the US. This isn't an anti-Hispanic. French Canada is not anything we want to emulate here. Voting and driving should require enough English proficiency to pass a test. Private companies can do what they want to serve their customers. Driving involves public safety. If you don't have enough understanding of English to follow traffic signs and directions from the police, then you are a menace behind the wheel. Voting? Enough said. Voting is for citizens, and citizens must know English.

I'm not anti-immigrant. My wife is an immigrant. This isn't some big public accommodation we're talking about, it's our country.

Of course, we could just adopt the Mexican laws. Non citizens can't own property... Then listen to the screams.

Re: birthright

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” --14th Amendment, 1868

The 19th-century meaning and understanding of "jurisdiction thereof" was closer to "loyal adherence"--which is not the same thing as just being born inside borders. In 1868, people would think it silly that a member of the Swedish Royal Family that happened to be born in America would have an automatic option of American citizenship, for example.

The problem is, all the subsequent judicial record and judicial history has kept broadening the right, till at this point, there's no distinction anymore between being born in a certain location, and being born as the loyal adherent of.

Well of course people should be speaking English, but it was never a requirement before..it was just a huge handicap for those who could not.

My ex said his great grandmother lived here for years before she died and German was always her first language. His Dad spoke German daily until he was nine and a teacher informed them that they would speak English in school. And he was born in a German part of Cincinnatti. As far as that is concerned there are still Indians who speak their native language. So yes, we should teach English in schools and it should be the national language but asking people to speak it as a prerequisite to being here is not really necessary. But everyone should learn the language.

I wonder if environmental impact studies will be required for a wall? It seems that nothing can just be built anymore. I have often wondered if the interstate highways built in the 50's could be approved and constructed today, or Hoover Dam, or a lot of other huge projects.

Yes, slowing the flow is important and while I understand that people do not want to legalize any of the people here I don't know any practical alternatives. I have not as of yet actually heard any practical way to roundup more than ten million people and remove them from the country. If people think they illegals are all criminals, then do they have the right to lawyers? And trials? Due process? I just don't see any way it can be done without opening a huge can of worms. And we are complicit as well, we did not enforce our laws for years and we have in the past encouraged and even sanctioned this kind of immigration when we felt it was in our interest. Millions of Mexicans came up year after year in the Bracera program, for many of them this is just what they do to make a living. We let that go on.

So it seems that building a wall is the first step. And then I agree we need programs in place that make this process as efficient and fair as possible.

It seems to me that your suggestion, while worthy, still leaves unsolved the two biggest problems-- those already here, and the fact that no wall is strong enough against determined forces.

There IS a simple answer, combined with yours, that solves all the problems. It is this: Simply require all employers to do a citizenship check of EVERY employee and report
"undocumented" workers to the INS. Every one of them would then be *automatically registered* as a "guest worker." This simple step solves
several problems all at once.
-- It stops the flow of illegals cold, since no NEW guest workers can be employed, except those who enter the country legally. (No document, no
job, and huge fines for employers who dodge the requirement.)
--The problem with amnesty is that there is no incentive for illegals already here to apply for it, and great incentive to enter illegally and
get it. This eliminates both of those perverse incentives.
--No fence, assuming Congress' promises can even be trusted, is 100% effective. With this provision, the fence can be built to keep out
terrorists and thugs, while the economic immigrants simply stop coming.
--It does not disrupt any business or the economy, people who are working keep working.
--It does not "punish" anybody. People working here, with families and ties to the community, get to stay for six years, at least. Companies who comply with the law face no fines or problems. I think "amnesty for employers" is a fair trade for their compliance.
--It gives us six years to decide what is the fairest way to make citizens of the most desirable immigrants (like your proposal), while sending the rest of the "guest workers" home.
--It lets us take politics out of the equation because guest workers supposedly can't vote and can't collect welfare.

Snochasr-

Except employers are ALREADY REQUIRED to verify legal residency status for all new employees. That's the purpose of Form I-9.

Works great, doesn't it?

Dafydd-

Step 1. Hear, hear and huzzah. Couldn’t agree more.

Step 2. I agree in concept, but I’d have to see the details. What’s rational to you and me might not be rational to our noble lords in Washington. (Who, of course, are very well known for acting rationally.)

Step 3. I guess I’d hold my nose and accept it if it’s the only way to get the deal done. Just be sure we don’t end up with another “bracero” program where large numbers don’t return home. And, while I understand (but don’t necessarily accept) your sluice gate rationale, we certainly can’t accept everyone who wants to be a guest worker or we’ll be right back in the same pickle. (Unless we have really RADICAL changes related to your step 4.)

Step 4. OK, but it depends on the timing. If, by “drop the hammer”, you mean that all illegal immigrants currently employed will have to be fired, I don’t see how that could happen anytime soon. These folks (most of them at least) were legally hired (from the employer’s perspective) under the laws then in effect. How does the employer then go back and re-evaluate every employee’s immigration status? No fair just looking at the ones who look or sound foreign.

If you just want to go after employers who knowingly hired illegals (i.e., they don’t have proper I-9’s on file), then go for it. But for the rest, one of two things would have to happen: Either the Feds raid the work place and haul off all the illegals they find, ignoring the fake documents and Social Security numbers they used to get hired. Or else, we’ll have to find a better way for employers to verify legal residency status. We both bantered about this on a different thread and basically agreed to disagree. Both your proposal and mine would accomplish the goal, but neither would happen overnight. Then we could have a one-time check of all existing employees to see whether they are legal. Under my proposal, employers could use their existing files to check employee status; under your … well, never mind.

************

One more thing. You start steps 2 and 3 with “at the same time”, and it looks like you would probably enact the legislation for step 4 simultaneously. Problem. There seems to be general agreement on this site and among the public at large that the first thing we need to do is seal the border. After that, everyone has different ideas for arriving at a “comprehensive solution”. So far, there doesn’t seem to be any comprehensive solution that will get enough votes to pass. (Unfortunately, that includes yours, Dafydd. For some Senators any kind of guest worker program is anathema; for others, it’s getting tough on employers.)

Hence my modest proposal: Call or email your Senators and tell them you want the border secured. That’s it. No “comprehensive solution”. Then, after the dust settles and the border is sealed (it‘ll never be perfect, but let‘s at least reduce illegal immigration to a trickle), we look at what to do next. Simple. Radical. Might even work.

A lot of people who hire workers like this may be hiring part time help, they have no way of knowing what their status is. These guys do odd jobs, yard work etc for individuals and most people just assume they are legal, or don't even think about it. After all if you just want your roof fixed you are not going to ask for some guy's life story.

Yes, yes YES!!
First build the fence, and back it up with good men and mean dogs.
Second, rewrite the immigration laws so that good honest men and women can legally enter (with appropriate checks and documentation, of course).
Third, put some serious financial teeth ($100/day/employee first offence, $1000 second, $10000 third?)into the laws against hiring undocumented/improperly documented workers AND provide a quick and fairly easy means of checking (SS number data base maybe, if somebody can figure out how to protect the info from scammers).

Do those three and the current crop of illegals just might take care of themselves. If there are no jobs (3) and all they need to do is go home and properly apply (2), the stress at the wall (1) will go down, and the good men and mean dogs can watch for drug runners and other real criminals.

Dick E:

What I had in mind for step 4 was to give the employers some grace period after a guest-worker program is in place to replace their workforce... a year or six months or somesuch. Something that is reasonably doable. (I'm only interested in the big, commercial employers, not homeowners hiring a guy to blow leaves off the driveway.)

During that time, the employers would have to check on the legal status of each employee; those who are not legal would have to do something -- for example, return across the border and apply for guest-worker status, then return to the job. The employer can even drive them, if he wants.

After the grace period, whatever it is -- when it's possible to get as many workers as you need who are legally in the country to work -- then start conducting the random or targeted spot checks.

At that point, every employer should have known he needed to regularize his guest workers; so if he didn't do it, hit him hard. Jail would not be out of the question, especially if he were deliberately using illegals in order to evade paying minimum wage, FICA tax, to threaten them if they complain about illegal treatment, and so forth.

(As far as the still-illegal workers themselves, maybe just deport them and tell them how they can work through the system next time.)

A few such raids, and the existence of a legal labor pool, should encourage all employers to do the right thing.

Dafydd

Dafydd-

Fine, but we've been struggling with just HOW do employers verify legal status for years. That's what the farcical I-9's are for.

In the absence of the kind of system we were jousting about before, I don't see how employers can "check on the legal status of each employee".

Employers can't be responsible for doing in-depth investigations or for verifying the legitimacy of the various documents we now use. They need some kind of US government system that wil give a thumbs up or thumbs down on each employee or applicant. That's going to take some time. Certainly more than a year -- especially if we adopt your ... oh, there I go again.

I linked from Finally, an immigration proposal I could live with.

It should not be too difficult to have employee social security numbers checked (with federal assistance). This is required for most full and part time employees, and domestic help. The two big exceptions are day laborers and agricultural help. There should be a way to fix that, too. Simply require the employer to file a form for each one. If they don't, they must pay taxes on the wages paid rather than expensing them, AND pay the $20,000 per employee fine for not making a certain level of effort, TBD.

Any other system currently being suggested, whether amnesty, or punitive, or somewhere in between, relies on most illegals identifying themselves. That is the failure mode that "automatic guest worker status" would avoid.

Bingo Snochaser!

Only thing I would add to that is check that the name and birth date that the employee submits agree with the SS number they gave. All of that currently resides in the Social Seurity Administration's data base.

This is the issue Dafydd and I were jousting back and forth about. He prefers a higher tech solution.

Our thoughts on the subject are in the April 4 thread entitled "A Tale of Two Cities". My first post was April 6 at 1:42AM, followed shortly by Dafydd's ideas. We went back and forth several times and, I think, basically agreed to disagree.

(I'm only interested in the big, commercial employers, not homeowners hiring a guy to blow leaves off the driveway.)

That is a fake argument, the Law does not recognise an employer/employee relationship in such a case, but an independent contractor selling a service to a customer.

If it were otherwise you would have to be filing witholding etc on them.

Dan Kauffman:

That is a fake argument, the Law does not recognise an employer/employee relationship in such a case, but an independent contractor selling a service to a customer.

The "Law" may not recognize, but the DA does. He's not likely to prosecute cases where the violation is trivial, harmless, and even if technically illegal, the jury is likely to nullify anyway.

Dafydd

I think the bill has to be comprehensive. Otherwise, there is no assurance that the border hawks will ever agree to deal with those here illegally.

The fact is, as you pointed out in your commant at 1:28 PM on March 28 (which I have extensively quoted), the system has become an abominable morass ruled by the arbitrary decisions of bureaucrats, not clear and objective standards. It has, in my opinon, become a system worthy of being ignored and the defiance it is receiving in our streets today is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Harold C. Hutchison:

On the other hand, we do want a bill, yes?

The biggest impediment to getting any bill at all is instance upon legalization of those illegals already here -- before we find out whether the wall and immigration reform even work.

I'm not willing to sacrifice both of those, plus a guest-worker program, just to legalize the illegals in 2006, rather than 2007.

We could likely build a significant portion of the wall and make our legal immigration laws more rational by, say, late 2007; how effective those changes are could probably be determined by then, too. So we're not talking very far in the future.

Close enough to remind conservatives that they asked for -- and received -- a delay until we could see how well the wall plus rational immigration worked. If it's working, they would be hard pressed to say "ha ha, fooled you!"

I'm willing to trust conservatives to be honest at that time, while I would not trust liberals to be honest at any time: individual liberals, yes; liberals as a group -- sorry, too many bad experiences.

I honestly believe this is the best we can get right now. If we insist upon the whole enchilada this year, we'll end up with a big, fat bagel.

Dafydd

My problem is seeing too many consevratives complaining about "no enforcement" (What do they think CBP and ICE are doing, playing tiddlywinks?), or calling the proposal amnesty (which the American Heritage dictionary defines as a "general pardon" - even the McCain-Kennedy bill had punishment, albeit not the punishment sought by the hard-liners, but it was punishment nonetheless).

And all too often, there is the claim that those who disagree with the hard-liners favor "open borders" - and that's a mild comment compared to those on some conservative forums. Five years ago, maybe I could have gone for that kind of thing. Now, I just don't know if I can trust the hard-liners on this issue.

Dafydd-

“If we insist upon the whole enchilada this year, we'll end up with a big, fat bagel.”

Absolutely right, Dafydd!

If I read you correctly, you’re saying we should go for a secure border plus rational immigration policy and leave the rest for later. I’m not clear on whether you still think we need guest worker program up front.

Just about anything we enact today to legalize the illegals is bound to be interpreted as an “amnesty”, which is a word just about no one in Congress wants to be associated with.

But getting back to your “whole enchilada (¡Viva Mexico!)” point, I know you are adamant about rationalizing immigration policy, but I haven’t heard it mentioned prominently by influential Congressmen. Yes, it is something we need, but is it important enough to jeopardize border security?

And if guest workers are still on your “must have” agenda, remember that Congress is not thinking of guest workers as a “spillway” to relieve pressure at the border. The GOP want it as a sop for businesses that want the cheap labor. This makes it a more controversial issue because, of course, some will favor it and some oppose it because it is presented as “pro-business”. Some others favor it as “immigrant friendly”, and some will oppose it for the same reason (because it might lead to workers overstaying their work permits). And if it applies to people already here, it sounds too much like “amnesty”.

What I’m saying is that, while you may know what YOU mean by a guest worker program, there is considerable difference of opinion elsewhere. And, since most people’s idea for a guest worker program is other than your “spillway” idea, as sound as that might be, maybe you should let that one go for now, too.

It seems like just about everyone, the people at large and in Congress, seems to think that border security is the number one issue. The problem is, Congress always wants to find a “comprehensive solution”. We need to disabuse them of that. As soon as anyone starts talking “comprehensive solution”, we lose all consensus, because there are so many different ideas about how to make the system perfect (or, at least better than just sealing the border).

I’m back to my position, as stated before: Call or email your Senators and tell them NO, WE DON”T WANT A “COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION”. WE JUST WANT OUR BORDERS SECURE. Then, after the dust settles and the border is sealed (it'll never be perfect, but let's at least reduce illegal immigration to a trickle), we look at what to do next. Simple. Radical. Might even work.

Dick E:

I know you are adamant about rationalizing immigration policy, but I haven’t heard it mentioned prominently by influential Congressmen. Yes, it is something we need, but is it important enough to jeopardize border security?

It's essential to border security... as is a guest-worker program (yes, I still want that as soon as we begin building the wall).

The reason why a wall would not work under present circumstances is that too many noncombatants will try to breach it.

This is not true with the Israeli walls separating that country from Gaza and the West Bank: anyone trying to breach them is a terrorist and can be slain out of hand.

As I have said many times, there is no wall so strong that a million people pushing won't knock it over.

We must, must, must reduce the number of people trying to breach the wall; otherwise, nothing will work... sheer weight of numbers will thwart all defenses.

The only way to do that is to install a gate. Or, in my other analogy, a spillway to channel the water streaming up against the dam.

Of all the people trying to cross our borders illegally, everything I have seen indicates that the huge majority, probably about 90%, are people who would otherwise be able to enter legally, but cannot because of our insane immigration and work-visa rules. (A tiny sample: Irish immigrants get pushed ahead of everyone else in line... because of Ted Kennedy. Latin American immigrants are pushed ahead of Asians, and so on.)

Of those 90% who could get in here legally each year, the majority just want to come here and work a while, then return home. Only a minority want to immigrate here.

So by letting in both immigrants (one track) and guest workers (another track), and keeping track of both tracks (all right, clumsy language alert), we relieve the otherwise massive pressure on the wall.

When honest people can come in through the gate, anyone still trying to breach the wall can be presumed to be a criminal or a combatant... and treated accordingly.

And if guest workers are still on your “must have” agenda, remember that Congress is not thinking of guest workers as a “spillway” to relieve pressure at the border.

I really don't care if they're right for the wrong reason or right for the right reason. It's necessary, regardless of what rhetoric they use to sell it to their constituents.

That is why we still need both rational immigration and guest-worker policies; it's the only way to "reduce illegal immigration to a trickle." Those pressure valves are what make the wall work.

Dafydd

Dafydd-

“[T]here is no wall so strong that a million people pushing won't knock it over.”

You keep saying this, but this is your assumption -- nay, your fervent belief. It really is NOT a foregone conclusion. As you note, it is possible to construct a nearly impermeable border. You mention Israel. There was also the Soviet Union and its satellites -- notably East Germany. Of course, we wouldn’t want to duplicate exactly the characteristics of these examples. Our border security would probably not be as successful as these, because we certainly won’t give orders to shoot border jumpers on sight. But just how successful can we be if we give it our full effort? Nobody knows. Including, I’m afraid, you.

That, together with the lack of political consensus about all the other issues, is why I say, border security first -- everything else should wait until we see how successful step one is.

(Another reason to have a border security only bill is because every additional issue included in the final product dilutes the importance of border security, making it less likely we will, in fact “give it our full effort”.)

Dick E,

Do we want a repeat Berlin Wall? I don't.

You say you want a "full effort" on the laws? For how long? how much money has to be spent before you will say a "full effort" has been made?

Any fence is going to be much more effective if you first eliminate the incentive for people to jump over it. Just implementing a guest worker program, especially if you allow people who are already here illegally to participate in it, only offers more incentive to jump the wall. The same is true of any kind of amnesty program, regardless of what requirements you put on it, or what you call it.

The bigger problem with all the proposals under consideration is that they depend upon illegal immigrants to "come out of the shadows" and identify themselves to participate in the program -- whatever it is. There's almost no incentive for them to do so. Remember the last time we offered an amnesty, with essentially no strings, two things happened. First the number of people crossing the border illegally went up dramatically. Then the number of people who lack he participated in the amnesty program was under 50% of those already here. This is not a recipe for success.

I still believe that the best solution is to use employers -- to require them to report all noncitizens in their employ, and to require all of them to register as a guest workers. The only choice should be whether they register or go home immediately. At that point the incentive to cross the wall drops to almost 0 (no new guest workers may be hired except those that come through the front door) and the option of staying in the shadows is foreclosed. After that, I like the idea of an improved path to true citizenship, subject to certain restrictions.

Dafydd-

Re-read my post, and I think you will agree that I do not suggest another Berlin Wall. A wall? Certainly. Video cameras, more manpower, maybe flying camera drones, maybe razor wire? Probably, but let the security experts decide what, within reason, will work. (And no, I can’t give you a definition of “within reason”, but it certainly includes both humanitarian -- don’t shoot the border jumpers -- and fiscal concerns.)

By “full effort” I simply mean working on border security undistracted by, and without competition for funds from, the other issues that would be part of a “comprehensive solution”. And it is not for me to say that the job is done, although I would be satisfied if we succeeded in reducing illegal immigration to a trickle. (No, I can’t define that either. But I’m certainly not the only one using that phrase.)

If we under fund or mismanage the process, it will not work adequately. We then address the under funding or mismanagement. We might discover that, without a Berlin Wall, we can’t solve the problem with border security alone. At that point, not before, is when we should start looking at ways to make it work (short of reconstructing the Berlin Wall). Maybe then we’ll decide that the pressure is just too great, and that we need some sort of relief valve -- maybe even your spillway proposal. But I see no reason to adopt it until it is proven to be needed.

Snochasr-

Your guest worker proposal is intriguing. All it requires is for the Social Security Admin. to implement the type of identity check we were discussing above. I only see two problems with it.

The first is the same issue common to all proposals I have seen so far that either deport, or cause to self deport, all illegal aliens who fail to meet some criteria (or, in some cases just propose to deport all illegal aliens). Remember that many illegal aliens might not be working at the time you announce the plan or work in jobs where the employer will not register them for guest worker status. (Any job where the employer doesn’t pay Social Security tax falls in this category. For these folks, punish the employer, not the worker.)

The basic problem is that, because we have allowed this situation to continue for so long, many illegal aliens have significant roots in the USA and, in some cases, weak, if any, roots in their home country. “So what,” you may say, “why should we reward people just because they violated the law for a long time?” Well, if the illegal aliens were the only people involved, one could easily say “That’s just too bad -- go back where you came from, even if you no longer know a soul there.”

The issue becomes a bit more complex if other family members are involved. Maybe one spouse has a job that qualifies him/her for guest worker status, but the other doesn’t. Or there may be a spouse who is a legal resident or a US citizen. I suppose one could say “Too bad -- you got married with your eyes wide open.”

OK, but what about children? If they are young and born abroad, we might say to send them back home with their parents. But what if the children are born here and are therefore US citizens? Say there is a child age 13, both parents are illegal, from a non-Spanish speaking country, the kid is in school, getting good grades, in a school district with no other students from the parents’ country, so the kid speaks perfect English and knows of the parents’ homeland only through stories. Now what? Send them all to Illegalstan? Let the kid stay here in foster care and deport the parents? If the parents’ home country is Spanish speaking, the numbers may be different, but the principles are the same.

I lay out all these scenarios because, while some might take the hard-hearted approach and say “To hell with them -- all illegals must go -- and their kids too -- end of story,” many others would want to take pity on some of the categories mentioned above. The problem will be getting agreement, at least in Congress, as to where to draw the line.

And that brings me to my second problem with your guest worker proposal. You are the first person I have heard of who recommends this particular nuance on a guest worker program. Many others (Dafyyd included) want to allow more guest workers into the country. Some would restrict it to ONLY people who reside (or at least are present) in a foreign country. Others would want guest workers both from current illegal immigrants and from new applications in foreign countries.

It’s the same issue I was ranting about above with Dafydd. Your idea may be the best thing since sliced bread, but it is VERY unlikely that Congress will adopt it -- you’d have to really sell it hard and outsell all the other competing guest worker proposals.

So I say (yes, I know I sound like a broken record), since it seems that border security is number one on practically everyone’s list, and there is essentially NO general agreement on anything else, let’s secure the border. If anything else is included in a legislative proposal, it will get bogged down and, to use Dafydd’s phrase, “we'll end up with a big, fat bagel”.

Dick E:

Dafydd-

Re-read my post, and I think you will agree that I do not suggest another Berlin Wall.

I think the feller you want is Harold C. Hutchison, Dick E.

Dafydd

Apparently the problem of employers being able to identify "undocumented workers" is essentially resolved.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/11/D8GU70080.html

Now all we have to do is to make immediate guest worker status mandatory (and no new ones to be created), and we have six years to decide how to handle all of these people.

I'm thinking that this solves the political problem, too, because we have to insist that guest workers not be allowed to vote during their stay. That should let the politicians concentrate on what is the "right thing" instead of pandering for votes. A rare opportunity that should be seized.

Snochasr-

I found the AP article to which Breitbart.com refers. The article is available here:

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/ITFIAF/Insight-8-Jernegan.pdf

The reason I wanted to find the article is because it just doesn’t ring true that “The system is linked to companies' records so employers cannot add employees to the payroll - be they janitors or CEOs - until the check is completed.” I can’t imagine any company would want the Feds to link directly to company records. After reading the article, I suppose one could call what they the Feds tested a link to company records, but I sure wouldn’t.

“Apparently the problem of employers being able to identify ‘undocumented workers’ is essentially resolved.”

The real article, as opposed to the AP story, shows that that is decidedly untrue. All the Feds have is some pilot projects that might show some promise if substantially more time and money is invested.

Dafydd-

Sorry -- you are, of course, correct. No excuse. Brain freeze. Looking back on Harold C. Hutchison’s questions, I realize they don’t sound like you. Sorry again.

The article I found via Snochasr’s post is a very interesting description of what is being tried to create a system to quickly and easily identify workers legally entitled to work. One of the pilot projects is very similar to my proposal. It was the most successful of the pilots, but it would need much more time and investment to make it work. Suffice it to say it definitely is not sufficient to just check name, birth date and SSN against the Social Security Admin.’s records, at least not as they currently exist. The most obvious flaw is that someone may have been admitted to work for a limited amount of time, the time expires, he’s still here, and the SSA never updates its records. And they encountered way to many “tentative rejections“, where the SSA data base said “no” but further checking (mostly manually) changed it into a “yes”.

They also tried something akin to your proposal. It wasn’t a fair test, because they didn’t create new ID cards. They just tried it in Iowa, the only state that had the proper info digitally encoded on their ID cards and driver’s licenses. That test, which, of course was only a pale shadow of your proposal, failed, but not for reasons that would be relevant to your proposed ID cards.

One of the biggest issues they discovered was related to the one mentioned above re SSA records: There would need to be communication between SSA and USCIS data bases, and possibly the IRS as well.

They looked at issuing more secure SS cards, and “The Social Security Administration estimated the cost of re-issuing secure cards to all 277 million SSC holders would range from $3.9 to $9.2 billion, depending upon the technology selected, and would involve 73,000 work years.” It sounds like this is just to make the current cards more secure. The issue of biometrics is mentioned in passing only much later in the article. Goodness knows how much they would say it will cost to link up the various data bases.

Conclusion is that, apparently both of our proposals are in the running, but I’m not even sure the race is really on.

My quick look at the organization’s web site didn’t make anything pop out at me as a hidden agenda -- maybe better educated eyes would find one. It sounds like the author of the article is a proponent of immigrant rights (presumably illegal), but the article itself sounds objective and factual -- although I don’t have any way of knowing for sure.

Dafydd-

Update: I found a report on the pilot projects on the USCIS web site:

http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/repsstudies/piloteval/INSBASIC_summ.pdf

There are other reports on these projects, but the overall conclusion is: "Based on the evaluation findings, electronic verification of employment authorization as tested in the Basic Pilot, while potentially a valid concept, is not ready for larger-scale implementation at this time. However, INS and SSA should continue to test pilot program improvements that would retain program advantages while mitigating current problems with the program." (Interestingly enough, when the USCIS made its report to Congress the following year, they said it would be OK to expand the pilot project on a voluntary basis to all employers by Dec. 1, 2004 -- which, strangely enough, was what the law ordering the pilot projects mandated.)

The rest of the reports can be accessed at:

http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/repsstudies/piloteval/piloteval.htm

Dick E:

Wait... so the bureaucracy, having deeply pondered the possibility of change, concluded that change was impossible. This is news?

All bureaucracies preserve every jot and tittle of their family traditions until forced at gunpoint to change them.

USCIS will continue to insist that they needn't change a thing -- until and unless Congress passes and the president signs a law forcing them to do so, with penalties for noncompliance.

If you want to argue against the smart-cards for philosophical or civil-liberties reasons, that's fine; but it's ridiculous to assert on the one hand that we can build a 2000-mile wall (or even 700-mile wall)... and on the other hand that we cannot possibly swap out the cardboard SS cards for cards that are barely more complex than a driver's license combined with a MasterCard.

How do we physically do it?

• Send out new cards with magnetic strips (no biometric) to every current U.S. citizen Social Security card holder (SSCH).
• Smart cards with biometrics go to every legal noncitizen SSCH and all new SSCH (cit or noncit); they must go to some location, give fingerprints, and get photographed.
• Replacement cards must be smart cards.
• Give incentives for people to voluntarily come in for new cards -- say a $20 tax refund (even if you don't owe taxes).
• Require all employers to require both a Social-Security card and some kind of photo ID before hiring as part of right-to-work verification (the smart card counts as both).

It's just not that difficult. But the bureaucracy will always tell you it's impossible.

Dafydd

Granted that everyone here is a genius, but you came up with a complete, reasonably workable solution in a few days. So why hasn't the 535-member Congress, toiling for months, come up with something at least as good? Is someone going to tell them that they've got it absolutely wrong?

Dafydd-

You are absolutely right: The steps you describe are not all that difficult (although the biometric part presents a bit of a challenge). Despite this, we are a long way from having a “one swipe of the card and it’s thumbs up or thumbs down” system. And it’s not because of card technology or cost.

The problem is the data bases. It will take some real work to get them up to speed. As I mention above, the SSA data base is clearly insufficient by itself (too easy to get a false positive, accepting as eligible to work someone who is not). But integrating it with the USCIS and, if necessary, the IRS data bases should be doable.

So what’s the problem? Two things (or at least these are the two I’ve been able to glean so far): Timing and manual input. Unfortunately, lots of the information in the USCIS data base comes from paper records. That means there are delays and data entry errors. This is information that comes from embassies and consulates all over the world, as well as US ports of entry and government offices around the country.

OK, so let’s put a terminal in every last consulate from Tashkent to Tierra del Fuego. That might take care of the delays, but not the simple data entry errors and misinterpretations. Plus some cultural issues -- for example, in some parts of the world (notably Africa) birth dates are not recorded. Also, I know from personal experience that the birth dates the Mexican government has in its records are sometimes inaccurate.

Names are another thing: Say the consulate in Guayaquil issues a temporary work visa to Carmelita Maria Rosita Vasquez de Davila. I could give you several different spellings of that name that might show up on different documents, including her passport. And how do you abbreviate it when it doesn’t fit the number of spaces we English speakers have allocated for names? And what are her first name, middle name and last name? And what if the name is written in Cyrillic, Arabic or Chinese? (Is it Ching, Qing, Tsing, or something else.)

Right now, as was demonstrated in the pilot projects (and I agree that the institutional inertia to which you refer is very real), when an employer enters the data or swipes a card, they often get a “tentative rejection” which requires further investigation either by SSA, USCIS or both. This is often a manual process which can easily take several days -- often much longer.

None of this is insurmountable. Maybe once you issue a visa or work permit to Carmelita you ignore her passport (although I’d be surprised if this would fly). Or maybe we just have one data base for all the relevant Federal agencies, and a unique ID number that might eventually become the person’s SSN, if they are eligible. I’m sure there is a way to get around all these problems. But it really is a very big job -- undoubtedly exaggerated by the bureaucrats, but still very big.

Unless we are willing to settle for half a loaf. Maybe we can link up all the appropriate data bases and accept that the “tentative rejections” will require manual investigation. Data entry by the employer could either be by entry into a terminal or by using your cards -- those would, of course, eliminate a lot of clerical errors.

I wouldn’t be surprised if such a system could be operational within a couple of years. Then we could work on streamlining the data bases and developing a system worthy of the 21st century. Ideally, it would include some biometric features. Example: When someone walks into the Bangalore consulate looking for a tourist visa (or work permit or whatever) they put their thumb in the reader and we know immediately whether they have applied before, for what, where, and under what name; it could also be tied in to criminal watch lists, or identify any other undesirables for whom we have biometric data. If we do this, the cards you advocate wouldn’t need to have the biometric data: It would be in the data base -- and make the cards that much harder to forge.

Dick E:

I wouldn’t be surprised if such a system could be operational within a couple of years.

I can live with that.

Dafydd

"I can live with that."

So can I. I also can live with the fact that we can get almost all of the benefits almost immediately while waiting for it. By requiring employers to register everyone who cannot prove citizenship as a guest worker, we bring EVERY one of them "out of the shadows" and discourage everyone else from crossing the border. Getting that first "guest worker card" is a one-shot deal, today only. If you want a job in the US after that, you have to come through the front door and follow all the other rules, whatever they may be. We would still build the wall, starting immediately, but we would have eliminated almost all incentive to cross it.

Then, as we get the system up and running, we slowly sort through all of those cards we passed out-- maybe some of them found their real green cards, whatever. At the same time, probably up the number of legal immigrants permitted each year (temporarily), with ONLY the extra slots used to allow the best of these folks to start work on citizenship. If you just want to be a guest, fine. Guests eventually go home. If you want to be a citizen, here are the rules.

The other thing I would insist on, to take the #$%*&)*!! politics out of the thing would be to insist that guest workers NOT be allowed to vote or draw public welfare benefits.

Does that satisfy everybody?

"I can live with that."

So can I. I also can live with the fact that we can get almost all of the benefits almost immediately while waiting for it. By requiring employers to register everyone who cannot prove citizenship as a guest worker, we bring EVERY one of them "out of the shadows" and discourage everyone else from crossing the border. Getting that first "guest worker card" is a one-shot deal, today only. If you want a job in the US after that, you have to come through the front door and follow all the other rules, whatever they may be. We would still build the wall, starting immediately, but we would have eliminated almost all incentive to cross it.

Then, as we get the system up and running, we slowly sort through all of those cards we passed out-- maybe some of them found their real green cards, whatever. At the same time, probably up the number of legal immigrants permitted each year (temporarily), with ONLY the extra slots used to allow the best of these folks to start work on citizenship. If you just want to be a guest, fine. Guests eventually go home. If you want to be a citizen, here are the rules.

The other thing I would insist on, to take the #$%*&)*!! politics out of the thing would be to insist that guest workers NOT be allowed to vote or draw public welfare benefits.

Does that satisfy everybody?

"I can live with that."

So can I. I also can live with the fact that we can get almost all of the benefits almost immediately while waiting for it. By requiring employers to register everyone who cannot prove citizenship as a guest worker, we bring EVERY one of them "out of the shadows" and discourage everyone else from crossing the border. Getting that first "guest worker card" is a one-shot deal, today only. If you want a job in the US after that, you have to come through the front door and follow all the other rules, whatever they may be. We would still build the wall, starting immediately, but we would have eliminated almost all incentive to cross it.

Then, as we get the system up and running, we slowly sort through all of those cards we passed out-- maybe some of them found their real green cards, whatever. At the same time, probably up the number of legal immigrants permitted each year (temporarily), with ONLY the extra slots used to allow the best of these folks to start work on citizenship. If you just want to be a guest, fine. Guests eventually go home. If you want to be a citizen, here are the rules.

The other thing I would insist on, to take the #$%*&)*!! politics out of the thing would be to insist that guest workers NOT be allowed to vote or draw public welfare benefits.

Does that satisfy everybody?

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)