Immigration Reform

I had an interesting e-mail exchange with a friend the other day, the gist of it being that the people we know who are of Mexican descent are overwhelmingly ferociously American.  They love their country, and they, like the millions of other immigrants of various origins – Ireland, England, Germany, China, Japan, Korea, West Africa, North Africa, Italy, the Middle East, India, Spain, the Philippines, etc. – are committed and loyal and hardworking Americans.

Overwhelmingly, they arrived in the US legally.  At the same time, they all have relatives or friends, equally hard-working, equally committed and loyal to the US, who did Not arrive here legally.  Many have been here for decades, but are nonetheless here illegally.

And so it leads to this ‘simple’ question: what is the appropriate solution?

Should we grant amnesty?  Or should we force out all who are here illegally?  The US is, after all, a nation of laws, not men.  And it must remain so.  Is that the final answer?  Is there no gray area?  Should there be no gray area, no possible compromise?  Is the letter of the law the final answer?  Or is there another piece to the puzzle?  Should compassion play a role?  And should US interests play a role?  And if there is some gray area, how can we deal fairly with those who are following the law in trying to become US citizens?

The President has recently weighed in with a plan that will allow an estimated 800,000 folks here illegally, to remain in the US if they continue their education, or serve in the military, have no criminal records, etc.  It is an interesting proposal.  But there are two things wrong with it.

The first is simply this: It’s against the law.  Senator Rubio, the junior senator from Florida, suggested just such a proposal a short while ago and it did not successfully make its way to law.  His proposal would change the law and allow those here illegally, if they satisfy certain criteria, to remain in the US, and to apply for citizenship.  Current US law does not allow that.  Hence, the law needs to be changed, if this it to be the manner in which the US handles certain illegal aliens.

President Obama, apparently not being terribly concerned with the niceties of the Constitution in which the Legislature enacts laws – and changes them, has decided to change the law himself.  That is interesting behavior for a Constitutional Law professor.  But, that is what he has done.

The second problem with this new course of action is simply this: there is no cost to those who have broken the law.  In effect, people are being rewarded for illegal behavior.  Am I looking for Draconian responses?  Certainly not.  But there is merit to the notion that, as Thomas Paine put it: “That which we obtain too cheaply we esteem to lightly.”  In short, there ought to be some penalty.  That penalty can be (and should be) simply monetary – a one time fee.  But it is necessary that a philosophical point be made: you must pay for breaking the law.

All this, of course, doesn’t answer what we should do about illegal immigration.  My own response to this all is, I think, horribly selfish.  By that I mean, I think the answer should involve at its core the idea of doing what is best for the United States and if others don’t like it, well – too bad.

The important question then is simply this: what is best for the US?  I would suggest that isn’t, despite all the noise on the news, really that difficult a thing to determine.  First, obviously, this is about those people, from whatever country, who are in the US illegally.  If they have a Green Card, if they have asked for sanctuary, if they are working through the process for citizenry, then this concept doesn’t concern them directly – except that in the latter case we do need to resolve the issue of fair treatment.  But the central issue is that of people who are in the US illegally.  And the US response should be to address US interests first.  And what are US interests?

I would answer that in this regard the nation’s interests are: Security, the Economy, and the Integrity of the nation.  As far as security goes, the US should be concerned that it can control its borders and its territory.  Procedures should be put in place to prevent people from illegally entering this country and from illegally living in and operating from this country.  We can debate what those might be, but we need to start with the simple concept that a nation needs to control its borders; there needs to be real control.  Secondly, security should involve ensuring that the nation is safe and in this case that means that those who are in the US illegally AND are engaging in criminal activity or activity that damages the US, US interests or the US economy should be either incarcerated (if they have committed a capital offense and are convicted of it), or quickly kicked out of the country, and are ineligible for return.

Economy: simply put, those who are contributing to our economy should be considered separately from those who do not. If you are employed, but here illegally, you might be required to immediately begin work on citizenship, and then pay a penalty, in the form of a sliding scale affixed to their income tax for a period of perhaps 3 years: the more they earn and the longer they have been here, the more they pay.  It doesn’t need to be an onerous, confiscatory tax, just one that recoups some government cost, perhaps a 5% to 15% increase on their taxes.  Those who are in the US illegally, are 18 years old or older, are unemployed, and are ineligible for a student visa, would be sent home.  If they are eligible for a student visa, they can apply for one, and they will be taxed – a penalty.  Pay the penalty (again, within a given timeframe) and qualify for the visa and they stay.  Otherwise, they leave.  As for military service as an avenue for citizenship, that actually has been on the books for quite a while.  Expanding it to allow someone who is in the US illegally to join up, assuming he meets all other requirements – and is willing to swear loyalty to the US – is really not that new a concept.

There is an objection to this position, that being that the illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from US citizens.  This “solution” really is reduced to two issues: penalizing the worker (the illegal immigrant), as discussed above, and penalizing the employer.  If the employer knowingly hired an illegal worker, simply stripping him of his worker(s) may satisfy some thirst for retribution, but hardly serves our combined interests for a healthy economy in the form of productive and profitable businesses.  Again, I think the best answer (and I recognize it is not perfect and will upset others), is to penalize the employer – a set fee per worker is probably the best answer, and then ensure that standard workplace rules are being followed: taxes, insurance, etc., etc.  The penalty would need to be large enough to be at least to some degree ‘painful,’ but it shouldn’t actually cause a drop in productivity – we are trying to grow the economy, not kill it with the death of a thousand cuts.  (Of course, once identified everyone needs to follow the law, as well as apply for US citizenship.)  Accordingly, the employer penalty needs to be carefully chosen, but again, should not be onerous.  (One that resulted in the employer firing some workers therefore is clearly counter-productive.)

How would we construct such a process without seeming to benefit the illegal immigrant at the expense of the unemployed citizen?  That is more difficult.  Penalties may have been paid, but we are still left with US citizens without employment.  The unpleasant truth however, is that there are no meaningful statistics that show that long-term unemployment rolls are materially affected by immigration – legal or illegal.  A healthy US economy would generate in excess of 2.5 million new jobs every year.  That is has not is a failure of the administration’s economic policies, not a result of immigration, or immigration policies.  Lashing the two together makes for good headlines, but fails to accurately address the real economic issues that are causing the unemployment and under-employment problem in the US.

Returning to the issue of immigration, I would add that for those immigrants who have something extra to offer: a patent of some value; an MD or some other list of desirable professionals, you should move up the list for entry and citizenship.  Is that, strictly speaking, fair?  Probably not.  Then again, I’m not trying to be fair.  I want to look out for US interests.  If you are smart or rich or talented I think it should be easier for you to become a citizen then your poor, dumb, untalented brother.  Look on it as picking a team: I think we should pick the best team we can.

For children who are in the US illegally without their parents or guardians, they must be returned to their parents if the parents can be found, or they become wards of the state.

Finally, there is the issue of the Integrity of the nation.  Simply put, we shouldn’t allow anyone into the US who doesn’t like us.  There should be several simple requirements for all illegal immigrants who otherwise qualify (see above) to stay: a strong and visible desire to become US citizens, an effort to learn English, a willingness to surrender any loyalties to any other nation.  This one is an issue: there are any number of countries with which the US currently allows US citizens to have dual citizenship.  There are also legal grounds for dual citizenship.  For example, a child of US citizens born overseas (while serving in the military for example) may well be a citizen of that country while also being a US citizen.  As a matter of policy US citizens should be required to surrender citizenship of another country when they reach their majority.  New adult citizens should likewise have to surrender their previous citizenship upon acceptance of US citizenship. Simply put, you are no longer an “Irishman,” or an “Irish-American,” you are an American.

Is all this fair to those who have applied for citizenship and followed the rules?  I would submit that the key is this: find a penalty that seems fair and use it.  If you are hard-working, want to be here, aren’t breaking the law, and are willing to commit to being an American – I want you here.  If you broke the law in getting here, but haven’t otherwise broken the law, then the simple answer is: pay the penalty and let’s get you the test and let’s make you a citizen.  If the above doesn’t pertain: if you aren’t hard-working, if you don’t want to be here but simply want to exploit the system, if you have been breaking the law, if you don’t really, really want to be an American – I don’t want you here.  Out you go.