One more thing I think might be a good idea, if you think it's viable. During the construction of the fence, anyone caught crossing the border illegally is immediately deported and denied entry for a penalty period (say 10 years). I think this could be agreed to, because of all the new ways to enter after the z and y visas go into effect.

Colin:

One advantage of instituting a more rational, fair, and predictable legal immigration policy is that, once you have it in place, there is no reason for an honest person to bypass it.

Under the current capricious, arbitrary, and at times even vindictive immigration "rules," ordinary, decent people who would make excellent Americans are denied for frivolous reasons or for no reason at all. Thus, even otherwise honest people are tempted to sneak in anyway; since they're being shafted for no reason -- much worse candidates are being allowed in, and the honest man isn't even told why he must stay out -- they don't believe the system is honest, so they feel no compunction about violating it. It's like stealing from a thief.

But when the system becomes predictable, then the ordinary, decent person knows what he must do to be accepted... and he bends his efforts in that direction.

In that environment, where anybody with the will can get in legally through the door, then anybody still trying to sneak in through the window can be presumed to be more nefarious than a simple illegal immigrant; and we can drop the hammer on him.

So in fact, I would support even harsher penalties for sneaking across the border after we have a rational, fair, and predictable immigration policy in place... say, incarceration for three months, and then deportation (for the first offense). Subsequent offenses carry increasingly onerous penalties.

And of course, before doing anything, we would thoroughly investigate who we have; maybe he's a wanted jihadist.

We will have a transition period, during which immigrants don't know that we have changed our system; but after a period of time, we can presume they have had an adequate opportunity to find out.

Dafydd

Here's one, and I think that it would be a "Deal-Maker", not a Deal-Breaker: Amend the Anchor Babies law.

In the U.S. Constitution, the 14th Amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Let Congress note that any person NOT signed up for a Z-Visa or legally on the Path to Citizenship is forever more denied the automatic Citizenship of their child due to the fact that people who are here illegally and outside the new system have chosen to escape being 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.

They choose to be outside our Laws? Then we recognize that they are choosing to outside our qualifications for Citizenship. Word it better, I'm not a law writer, but this could make it happen.

For the Democrats: If you really think that this law is good for folks, then they should have no problem signing up. For the Republicans: Would you get into pushing matches to sign the Bill if this were included?

Yeah... I think so...

Another: There has to be some sure provision that keeps American Citizens who may, shall we say 'have something to hide', from using this new law to create a new identity.

If all a criminal had to do was have a History of Employment for ten years and a name that does not set off any triggers on the background check (of COURSE you can't find my name in your system... I worked very HARD to stay out of your records, silly!) then I can see a wave of US Citizens seeking an Amnesty for all ill-gotten income. When we're gonna forgive back-taxes and fines, we're gonna get some takers. And not all of them will be from outside our borders.

I'm not saying that there will be a LOT of them, they have to have not been caught yet to avoid having fingerprints on file and such. But you can't offer that kind of free ride without making sure you aren't giving local criminals a free pass alongside our newly discovered neighbors.

Dafydd,

I hate to burst your bubble on #3 but under the 1996 ACT, also called IRAIIRA, it is already a mandatory federal law that everyone has their exit recorded and they are to turn in their I-94.

We don't punish those people who do not turn them in because we do not have the staffing levels to enforce entry into the United States, let alone someone's exit. It's not their fault that we have no one on the Souther Border for them to turn their cards into.

Not only that, but things get really confusing when you are dealing with Canada and Mexico. Confusing to the point that the process wouldn't work if it were automated.

For example, you pay $6.00 to come here as a visitor and you get an automatic 6 months. You can get up to a year. So let's say you are a Mexican citizen coming for two weeks to San Francisco. When you go home you realize that you will be back in two months. If you keep your I-94 card, it is still valid for another 5 months after you trip is done. If you travel to Mexico or Canada, we have something called automatic revalidation. This means that you don't have to obtain another I-94 if the one you currently have is still valid. So you can go in and out, in and out, in and out on the same document for 6 months as long as you are going to Canada and Mexico.

But then, what if you keep the document, go out prior to 6 months, and then don't come back again before your 6 months is up? It will look like you are still here.

It's even more complicated than what i'm making it here but it is difficult to explain.

The basic point is, we've already got a law that requires the federal government to record everyone's exit as well as entrance. But it's a similar law to requiring all vehicles to get 100 miles per gallon. We can't do it, so we just ignore the law.

Another thing....

Why is there a time clock on the Z visa? This frightens me.

You can't figure out if someone is a bad guy in 24 hours. One of the big problems we have today with illegal immigration is that the State Department issues the visa and the Deparment of Homeland Security (CBP Officers like me) inspect the passenger and their visa when they use it on the border.

What ends up happening is the State Deparment, having to meet some kind of quotas, says, "Well, the immigration guy will stop this fellow if there is anything wrong." and the immigration guy says, "Well, the State Department issued them a visa so they must be alright."

And we each blame the other guy which results in lot's of overstays and bad guys getting into the country.

Now you pile on a new Z visa and say that if they aren't caught or figured out in 24 hours, they are in! Silliness. They get their visa, are not found out for whatever reason, come in a week later into the United States and are caught by a CBP Officer who managed to figure out something the State Department guy didn't figure out and you're telling me we can't do anything because the 24 hours is up?

I have to ask, why put a time limit on it at all? If you don't deserve a Z visa on Wed you still don't deserve one on Sunday, even if you managed to get one somehow.

Have you guys and gals any other suggestions?

Anyone who has been previously deported and found once again inside our borders, does not get a hearing, mere verification that they are indeed the person in the previous deportation order should be all that is required.

I mean this is a travesty

An illegal immigrant who has been arrested previously on drug and firearms charges and deported seven times Friday pleaded not guilty to illegally re-entering the United States.

Felipe Garcia-Morales, 28, a citizen of Mexico, entered the plea and agreed to be represented by a federal public defender.

Declare illegal border crossing a forcible felony punishable by a mandatory minimum prison term of ten years and authorize the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm by peace officers trying to prevent it. Advertise the law in all Mexican media.

Nk:

Anyone who has been previously deported and found once again inside our borders, does not get a hearing, mere verification that they are indeed the person in the previous deportation order should be all that is required.

What if he claims he filed an I-212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission Into the United States After Deportation or Removal, and claims it was granted?

Don't you need a hearing to decide whether he's telling the truth?

As to your second suggestion, I'm looking for amendments that will make the bill more likely to pass, not less.

Dafydd

I am a little confused what second suggestion do you refer to?

Oh I see you have me confused with NK?

As to your question about

What if he claims he filed an I-212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission Into the United States After Deportation or Removal, and claims it was granted?

Don't you need a hearing to decide whether he's telling the truth?

How about some reality here Dafydd maybe they can verify the existence of the documentation you speak of but don't you think after SEVEN previous deportations that it is s little ridiculous to require the expense of a trial with a State appointed and paid for legal counsel?

It can get hectic in the comments section I am not surprised that you can mix up posters I TOO totally reject NKs suggestions

Two data bases maybe with biometric and fingerprint IDs

One for deportees and one for

filed an I-212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission Into the United States After Deportation or Removal, and claims it was granted?

You are in the first and not the second, you get fast tracked out ot the country.

The disagreement I have with the Y and Z visas [visae?] are that they can be used by the whole world, when really we're talking about immigrant Christians [ok Catholics easily prone to marxist thought] from Mexico and Central America. I think the debate should be limited for those two visa categories to people from those countries. For everyone else, the visa entry should be allowed to accomodate a reasonable growing economy, maybe 1 to 1.5 Million legal immigrants a year using a version of the OLD system. The problem with the old system is that it limits immigration too much in view of the growth in our economy. It can be expanded by increasing the quota.

I am not proposing death squads or machine gun towers. This is the law for residential burglary in many, if not most, states.

The law is unsettled in this area. Although the Supreme Court has ruled that there is diminished Fourth Amendment protection at the border, in a subsequent case it severely limited the authority of the police to use deadly force against someone who was not himself threatening the imminent use of deadly force. One result is border patrol agents going to prison for shooting unarmed drug smugglers. They should at least be protected from criminal prosecution for doing their jobs.

Ancient Sparta bragged that it did not need walls because her warriors were her walls. There was a little more to it than that. Any undefended fence will have a thousand holes in it the day after it's built. Imagine this scenario: A border patrolman responds to an alarm at some point in the fence. He sees the illegal with his pickax and portable Skilsaw making a man-sized opening. He yells: "Hey, you can't do that!" The illegal stops: "Esta bien, gringo. Hasta manana."

As for the draconian penalty I propose, that is also based on valid criminology. The greater the probability of punishment, the smaller the penalty neessary for deterrence. The lower the probability of punishment, the greater the penalty needed. We will never allocate the resources to prosecute more than one in a thousand. But for people who are coming here to work to feed their families, even a one in a thousand chance that they will not hold their children for the next ten years may be enough to deter them.

I still have only one requirement, other than the excellent ones you have suggested. That is, that possession of a Z-visa, provisional or full, is the MINIMUM acceptable requirement for ALL employment, starting today, becoming effective as soon as the new, secure employee verification system is online. That is, no visa, no job. There are, of course, some ancillary problems with this simple but essential dictum. First, we should allow employers to pay the $1000 application fee (or even require it, since they benefitted, presumably). Second, We have to decide what we mean by "criminal activity, disqualification by." If we mean using a false Social Security number, or tax evasion, or human trafficking (his family), or driving without a license, or any other "related" crime for which we are going to grant some sort of semi-amnesty, that's one thing. But even if we're going to be generous with our compassion, we're still going to have hundreds of thousands of people who will need to be given hearings and deported forthwith. They aren't all your wonderful long-time gardener or housekeeper. We can't just wish for that to happpen, Congress must have appropriated money to do it. Call it having the government "pay for its past dereliction of duty."

This morning there were amendments to cut or remove the guest workers. That seems to be an improvement. It's a bit surprising that it comes from the Democrats, but I'll certainly take it.

- Your brother Steve

I have one more, that may already have been addressed in the bill (does anyone really know what this monstrosity actually says?) and may or may not be as reported. I am told there are currently some 60,000-600,000 people living here who are under orders of deportation! Maybe a good start, and another way of convincing us that "we really, really mean to enforce the law this time" would be to find those folks and put them on the bus? The bill could set aside money and manpower for doing it. And while they're at it, make sure we take their biometrics in case they come sneaking back.

Dan Kauffman:

Yes, I'm sorry; in my haste, I mistook your proposed amendment for another one of Nk's.

How about some reality here Dafydd maybe they can verify the existence of the documentation you speak of but don't you think after SEVEN previous deportations that it is s little ridiculous to require the expense of a trial with a State appointed and paid for legal counsel?

But your suggestion wasn't limited to the particular example you cited; your amendment was that anyone who had been deported is denied a hearing if found in the country again, even if only deported once. And we have a specific procedure for those deported or removed to get back in -- legally -- under some circumstances.

My point is that you can never dispense with a hearing, for the same reason you can never dispense with a trial and proceed straight to punishment: Because, with millions of people, there will inevitably be some extraordinary circumstances.

Two data bases maybe with biometric and fingerprint IDs.... You are in the first and not the second, you get fast tracked out ot the country.

What if the second database is wrong? What if the person you pick up says he has the documentation from USCIS in his safe-deposit box? Dan, you can never, ever, ever have a rule that so and so is not even allowed a hearing; not even (per the Supreme Court) when he is an enemy combatant... though the hearing needn't be a full trial.

Nk:

My apologies for attributing a proposed amendment from Dan Kauffman to you.

One result is border patrol agents going to prison for shooting unarmed drug smugglers. They should at least be protected from criminal prosecution for doing their jobs.

The Court ruled that shooting unarmed suspects was not "doing their jobs," just as it would not be, in most cases, if cops shot a fleeing, unarmed suspect in the back.

Snochasr, my Boffo brother Steve:

(That's a serial comma, not a parenthetical comma; Snochasr and Steve are two more or less different people.)

Mark Steyn convinced me many months ago that a guest-worker program was a really, really bad idea: It creates, in the heart of the country, a pool of foreign workers with no allegiance to the United States, no intention of becoming citizens or even living here permanently, completely alienated from our culture. That is a prescription for catastrophe.

I would much rather see a policy that those with provisional Z-visas were not covered by the minimum wage laws of the United States or of any state... then let the "guest-worker" jobs be taken by people who honestly want to be Americans and have a vested interest in our society and culture.

Kill the guest worker program! Let real immigrants take those jobs!

Snochasr alone:

I am told there are currently some 60,000-600,000 people living here who are under orders of deportation! Maybe a good start, and another way of convincing us that "we really, really mean to enforce the law this time" would be to find those folks and put them on the bus? The bill could set aside money and manpower for doing it.

Hm; it sounds good on its face. But can we limit it to those who would still be deported under the new rules?

That is, if somebody is under a deportation order solely for being here illegally -- for which he would not be subject to deportation were he found after having gotten a provisional Z-visa -- it seems a bit thick to deport him anyway because he had the bad luck to get caught today instead of a couple of months from now.

If he's under a deportation order for something that would get him deported even under this bill -- nefarious activity, for example -- then yes, let's appropriate the money to step up deportations of those undesirables.

Dafydd (steve's brother)

The reason some Dems (specifically Dorgan) are proposing to take out the guestworker program is that they know it's a dealbreaker for the GOP. That's what the businesspeople who pay the piper and call the tune want. If they don't get it, the Republican backers will vanish and the bill will be mostly if not all dead.

And to Steve's brother ;-) I would love to see you address and interact with Bill Whittle's "broken windows" argument in his latest piece against legalizing the current lawbreakers. I certainly take his argument that it sends a bad message to people like my brother in law who did play by the rules and wait in line to get in.

Watchman:

I would love to see you address and interact with Bill Whittle's "broken windows" argument in his latest piece against legalizing the current lawbreakers. I certainly take his argument that it sends a bad message to people like my brother in law who did play by the rules and wait in line to get in.

I have addressed this argument extensively; if you click on the link that reads "Immigration Immolations" at the top of this post, right under the title, you will get a list of all my posts in this category. [I just put the link into this very paragraph, to make it even easier.]

Please note that my wife Sachi also immigrated here (from Japan), played by the rules, was never illegal, and eventually became an American citizen. But the horrors she went through, and those calamities suffered by friends of hers who were ordered to leave the country for no explicable reason, have convinced us both that the system is terribly broken.

In fact, it is so broken that a large percentage -- probably a very large majority -- of illegal immigrants did not sneak in because they were lazy, or because they were criminals, or because they wanted to "jump the line" (there is no line; that's one of the problems), or because they were unqualified for any other rational reason to immigrate into the United States.

They did so because they were denied entry for irrational, abritrary, or even vindictive reasons.

The fundamental premise of the "broken windows" theory, as developed by criminologists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, is that the law itself be rational, fair, and equally applied. In that case, one should always move aggressively to punish lawbreakers and never reward them.

But when the law itself is irrational, unfair, and applied selectively, the entire theory falls apart.

In that situation, lawbreakers should be forgiven, perhaps with minor punishment; and in some extreme cases, where the law was unusually venomous, certain lawbreakers would be called heroes... as we dub, e.g., those blacks and whites who defied the Jim Crow laws in the South prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You needn't believe that today's immigration system is as bad as Jim Crow; it certainqly is not. But, if you agree that the legal immigration system today is fundamentally and fatally flawed, then you certainly cannot invoke "broken windows" to oppose a bill that reforms the law -- but also forgives those who broke it in the past.

Dafydd

What are they doing with Alcatraz?

What if the second database is wrong? What if the person you pick up says he has the documentation from USCIS in his safe-deposit box? Dan, you can never, ever, ever have a rule that so and so is not even allowed a hearing; not even (per the Supreme Court) when he is an enemy combatant... though the hearing needn't be a full trial

They do not get the documentation allowing them to reenter, unless both databases are checked in their presence.

I don't conceed that the Privalege of entry into the US is a right requiring a "hearing" we don't have hearings at Consulates overseas for Visa applications we have interviews.

But looking at your statement the hearing could be an administrative interview, but no trials paid for by the taxpayer, no legal representation paid for by the tax payer, a simple finding they are or are not the person under a VALID deportation order.

Actually I think the database for someone allowed back in after being deported would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the one ordering deportation and they will be in it or not.

And if not, entry is denied. They do not pass go, they get carted off to the border.

I work in a secure area, I have a card that I swipe, I think shorty I just hold it near a sensor a security database is queried and It says whether or not I am allowed entry.

I don't see why the same database technology cannot be used in these cases.

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

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)