A Different Approach to Immigration Reform
Print This Post
For a majority of Americans, “comprehensive” immigration reform has become code word for a controversial amnesty they are convinced would only encourage more illegal immigration, and all the crime, as well as fiscal and social obligations, that derive from it.
These days, you find plenty of US politicians agreeing on just one thing –the immigration system is “broken”. It’s a comfortable truism, to say the least. With about 11 million undocumented nationals living and working in this country –and the prospects of that figure growing every single day- its sounds more like an understatement. A pity we didn’t hear the same, over the years, about our “broken” health system. If anything, we could have easily avoided the belated and costly reform that followed.
This comes to my mind whenever some of those same politicians call for a “comprehensive” immigration reform as a remedy for the broken system whose existence we all seem to acknowledge. However, the issue somehow always gets stuck in the legislative process, and elections, as well as political considerations, are cited as the cause. President Barack Obama calls it lack of “appetite”. The reason may actually be a wrong approach.
For a majority of Americans, “comprehensive” immigration reform has become code word for a controversial amnesty they are convinced would only encourage more illegal immigration, and all the crime, as well as fiscal and social obligations, that derive from it. They point to the legalization process of 1986 as evidence of this. They are probably very right. No matter which way we look at it, the recent Arizona law criminalizing illegal immigration in that state was meant to address this very public and widespread concern.
Since rounding up and deporting millions of human beings all over America would not only be very hard and costly –not to say cruel, in most cases- many have come to believe the reform of our immigration laws, so urgently needed, is intrinsically tied to the legalization of all undocumented nationals –a path to citizenship, they cal it. The “sí se puede” and open borders crowd would certainly want to reinforce such belief in us, even if it threatens to undermine the reform forever.
Yet reforming US immigration laws –including heightened border security, stricter and clearer requirements for permanent residence, as well as a streamlined program for temporary workers- should not be necessarily tied to whatever process is needed to deal with the growing number of undocumented nationals on our soil. The latter issue is certainly controversial and complex enough to warrant a separate consideration.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle would be well advised to take a two-step approach in dealing with the immigration woes. With amnesty out of the equation, as a separate task, the much-needed reform of our immigration laws could be undertaken on a bipartisan basis, with a minimum of political risk or pressure. Once strong rules are established, facilitating legal immigration and imposing harsh penalties to those who hire undocumented workers, and keeping a solid control of the borders in a bold and effective first step, the public at large would be more willing to accept the legitimacy and need of pursuing the crucial second step –dealing with the status of those who have come to this country illegally.
It may be a process that requires those foreign nationals to voluntarily return to their home countries to initiate their legalization paperwork there, thorough background and health checks, as well as paying fines and a working knowledge of English. The details would be up to the legislators, and they could make the path to legal residence as hard as they wish. Some removals from US territory would still take place, as the criminal elements are weeded out. With the border secure, however, the heavy lifting would be mostly done and the reform accomplished.
Even with such measures, many hard-liners on the right would remain unconvinced, of course. To be sure, nothing but mass round ups and deportations would satisfy them. The open borders crowd would be up in arms, too. It has always thrived on the victimization of undocumented nationals and their second-class citizenship. Where would they be without them? Who would they rally to their cause? But reason and effective action on the part of government will have the virtue of isolating these inevitable nutcases –hopefully forever.
Mr. Ballagas:
Your plan is logical, commonsense and compassionate. Your solution resembles Mr.
Charles Krauthammer’s solution in that you want to fix the pressing problem of securing the border now before tackling the devisive issue of creating some sort of amnesty (a path to citizenship) for the immigrants living and working in this country illegally. Of course, we are not going to forcibly deport 11 million men, women and children. This goes against the heart of America. I wish that we had more voices like yours in the current debate. Please continue to spread your message. It is sorely needed as the powers that be seek, yet again, to divide us.
Thanks, Theresa. Just a thought.
Just a couple of questions. I just watched Eric Holder testify that the use of state and local officials in the failed Times Square bombing attempt were invaluable as force multipliers and should be used in the future. Why are state and local official invaluable in this case, but cannot be used as force multipliers in Arizona for immigration enforcement?
If the Arizona law (which is identical to the Federal law not being enforced) is considered racists, does that mean the Federal law is also racists?
Lastly, I thought Hispanics were part of a culture, but considered Caucasians.
I agree with Mr. Ballagas’ and Charles Krauthammer’s ideas for reform. If those currently here in the U.S. illegally pay a significant fine prior to being considered for permenent residence, then I do not consider it amnesty.
The point of my article, John, is that immigration reform should be taken in two steps -in two separate Congressional measures- one, reviewing immigration laws, procedures and requirements, as well as border security issues. After that is settled, the more divisive task of dealing with those already residing here illegally should be approached. And yes, I believe Arizona has all the right to enforce already existing immigration laws. Local authorities are always a solid tool of support for the federal government and this is such a case.
Manuel,
We are in agreeement.
To Jonh Rubio:
Hispanic/Latinos are not considered caucasians I’ve never heard that before. And there are a large number of latinos with african roots. Ever heard of Afro-cubans? We are a diaspora. You actually bring up an interesting point about latino Identity but that is for another time.
To Mr. Ballagas:
Thanks for the Article.
Mr. Delgado,
Most people of Hispanic descent come from Spain. The Spanish are Caucasians. You are correct that many Hispanics have African descendants. There is also a large influence of Asian, Italian, Portugese and Germanic blood in Mexico and other Latin countries including South America. So if you can find us the one blue eyed, blond Arizona trooper with pure anglo blood that is going to specifically target a Hispanic (of whatever origins) to racially profile them, you let everyone here know. But make sure to give us a specific instance, not just assume that it will definately happen. I’m not saying it won’t happen. There are bad people in every group (to paraphrase Mayor Bloomberg of New York); but can an established pattern of racial profiling be proven?
Rubio,
You and I appear to be in agreement on Racial Profiling. It will have to be defined in court so we will wait and see how that shakes out. I think your point about the various races of the latino diaspora is well taken. However most folks will disagree with you on the Spain issue. The reality is thats not how most latinos identify themselves. Whether it is right or wrong. And people in Spain themselves don’t identify as caucasian.
Samuel Delgado,
I abhor the idea of racial profiling. I know it happens, but not nearly as much as when I was a young teenager growing up in San Diego in the 1960′s. Things are getting better and I expect them to improve even more as time continues.
My concern now is that the progressives are using Hispanics and the “racist card” to further their agenda. Why would the progressives want to drive a wedge between conservatives and Hispanics? Most Hispanics I know are conservative. They are Christian, Pro-Life, pro-hetero marriage, for a balanced budget, for secure borders and smaller governement. Why don’t the progressives engage us on these issues? Because they know it will not be in their favor; so, they stoke the only issue that will drive Hispanics into their camp–immigration and “supposed” racism. I think that we need to look at who is stoking the flames and be wary of their intentions. When you looked at the news videos of the marches in Los Angeles on May Day, did you see the SEIU union banners? I submit that the progressive intentions is not what Hispanics need nor want, but the greater goal of total government and a people that are totally dependant on that governement. We need to return to our true conservative Hispanic roots and strive for whats best for our individual families.
There seems to be some confusion here as to racial/ethnic definitions. Yes, there are some Caucasian Hispanics, even quite a number of real blondes. Probably direct descendants of Europeans coming from Spain, Italy, Portugal, etc. And there are, of course, black Hispanics, and Hispanics with native Latin American roots. And by the way, all the in-betweens. That is only race. Hispanic is an ethnic designation used in the United States, and it involves mostly cultural heritage and language factors.
As for the profiling, specific cases would need to arise and be taken to court in the future -if indeed, the cases happen- in order to ascertain if the law gives rise to such behavior by the police. Considering the Arizona law itself explicitly forbids law enforcement to use race or ethnicity to enforce the law, I doubt many cops would like to go that way. Most likely, traffic stops and other violations will trigger the immigration questions. And since many of the undocumented come from Latin America, most of those questioned will inevitably be Hispanic. Does that mean the law is “racist” or discriminate on the basis of national origin? I don’t think so.
Thanks. Those were the points I was trying to make just not as eloquent.