A Comprehensive Immigration Reform Framework

That Honors American Priorities

The “comprehensive immigration reform” genie is out of the bottle.  With Arizona passing an illegal alien law shortly after two Senators proposed a framework for national legislation, the issue came under a spotlight on the national stage.  That spotlight is unlikely to dim through the 2010 elections.  At least a dozen states are seeking to emulate the Arizona law while boycotts and protests of Arizona because of that law will continue to roil the country. 

This issue will not readily be tamped down especially considering the President’s statements that have raised and dashed expectations:

• In July 2008, Candidate Obama said he would make immigration “a top priority in my first year as president.”

• In August 2009, when the above promise was seen as broken, President Obama stated, “When we come back next year ... we should be in a position to start acting [on immigration reform legislation].”

• In March 2010, the President embraced the “promising, bipartisan framework” on immigration reform offered by Senators Schumer and Graham.

• In April 2010, ten days after the Arizona illegal alien law was passed, President Obama indicated there would likely be no immigration reform legislative effort prior to this year’s elections.  (“[T]here may not be an appetite immediately to dive into another controversial issue.”)  

Presidential and Congressional attempts at distancing themselves from addressing the issue will likely by unsatisfying to the country. 

The responsibility of Congress is to craft legislation that can be embraced by the American people.  Congressmen are representatives and servants of We the People.  They are to legislate on behalf of Americans; not for themselves or would-be Americans.  “Reform” proposals that are perceived as largely benefiting those in office politically or financially—as the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Acts of 2006 and 2007 were seen—will again be massively rejected by the American people. 

To develop comprehensive immigration reform legislation that is supported by the American people, one has to honor American priorities.  The priorities that pertain to this issue in order of their importance:

1)  Protect American citizens – The American government is charged with securing for Americans the rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.  This must always be government’s uppermost consideration.

2)  Protect the country – That includes the American way of life (the freedoms, responsibilities, and opportunities that make this country the “shining city on a hill”), its laws, lands, and borders.  Americans love their country.  They are proud of it and devoted to it.  Any reform that does not honor this patriotic love will not be accepted.

3)  Be compassionate to those who are not Americans and who do not wish us harm.  Americans are a generous and forgiving people with a strong sense of what is right and fair.  Any legislation that is not seen as fair or that seems to be our servants (our elected officials) forcing “compassion” on Americans will be rejected. 

Comprehensive immigration reform legislation proponents that do not honor these priorities in word and deed—e.g., if they were to slander patriotic Americans as racist, xenophobic, or uncaring—will be considered out of touch with their countrymen and respect for and approval of them will be lost.

To be accepted by the American people, comprehensive immigration reform legislation and its formulators and proponents need to make clear they understand and respect the above priorities. 

Proud to be an American
Americans welcome those who are honored and
find great joy in becoming an American.

The United States Oath of Allegiance must be taken by all immigrants who wish to become United States citizens.  Those who embrace this oath and live it, even before having to swear it, will be accepted as Americans.  Race, religion, ethnicity, and previous nationality don’t matter.

Oath of Allegiance I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Precision in terminology is a prerequisite for accuracy in action.  In the discussion of what actions are to be taken as part of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, it is important to avoid inaccurate and misleading terms such as “undocumented aliens,” “undocumented immigrants,” and “undocumented workers.”  All of the non-U.S. citizens in this country that are not here legally have documents, hence they are not “undocumented”; what they lack are documents giving them legal right to be in the U.S.  Many of these people don’t have jobs—they are too young, too old, taking care of children or unemployed for other reasons—so they are not all “workers;” just as not all U.S. citizens are “workers.”  Finally they are not all “immigrants” which implies they have come to this country to permanently settle; many have not.  The term that is always accurate is “illegal alien.”  The people under discussion are in America illegally (and may have entered the country illegally) and they are aliens, meaning the person is not a U.S. citizen.  If one cannot be open, honest, and accurate in use of language, everything one does is suspect. 

As in all discussions, red herring arguments such as “we can’t round up and deport nn million people” are to be avoided.  We could do most anything we wanted—never sell America and Americans short—but there would be no need for mass deportations if, for example, it became less desirable for illegal aliens to stay here than leave.  People would leave of their own accord.  No “round-ups” needed.  We are not forced to keep non-citizens in this country or make them citizens because millions of them are here.  Such specious arguments demonstrate ignorance and disrespect and are only used by those who are ignorant and/or disrespectful.

Comprehensive immigration reform legislation that can be supported by the American people because it honors our priorities must address the following:

1)  The process of legal immigration for people not currently in the U.S.

2)  Dealing with illegal aliens currently in the U.S.  They fall into the following broad categories:

a.  They want to become U.S. citizens

b.  They want to reside and work here temporarily, perhaps seasonally, but not become U.S. citizens

c.   They want to reside here for an indefinite period but not become U.S. citizens

3)  Reducing the likelihood of an immigration problem resurfacing

Each of these reform aspects are explored in turn below in relation to the priorities of Americans.

 

1) The process of legal immigration for people not currently in the U.S.

The details of this process are not a cause for concern to most Americans.  Whatever the legal process becomes, it is important to include the following:

• Becoming a U.S. citizen should not be trivial.  The process should be demanding enough to ensure that people who become U.S. citizens, had a strong commitment towards that goal.  There should be adequate time for assimilation into American culture to occur before citizenship is granted.  The national allegiance of American citizens must first be to the United States of America.  To become an American is to become devoted to America.  (See priority 2.)

• The numbers of legal immigrants to this country is to be appropriately balanced by country of origin.  If there is a preponderance of immigrants from a particular country or culture into the U.S., the likelihood of assimilation is reduced.  The imbalance that has occurred in the past 30 years gave rise to the ubiquitous and culture diluting dual use of Spanish as well as English.  (See priorities 2 and 3.)

• As a consequence of the above, if a foreign country has a large number of illegal aliens present in this country, and they are presented with a legal path to citizenship, the number of new legal immigrants allowed from that country in the future is correspondingly reduced.  (See priority 3.)

• Foreign nationals need to be sponsored to become American citizens.  That is, an educational institution, business, or citizen needs to commit to ensuring the prospective citizen does not become a ward of the state or consumes services for which they have not paid.  (See priority 1.)

• Foreign nationals who marry a U.S. citizen must still go through the normal legal immigration process to become a U.S. citizen.  Their sponsor can be their spouse.  This minimizes the likelihood of people gaming the system by marrying an American.  If they really want to become an American, they would respect the legal immigration process.  (See priorities 2 and 3.)

 

2) Dealing with illegal aliens currently in the U.S.

• Whatever their intent, to become a citizen or a temporary worker, illegal aliens report their presence in this country to government officials.  That is, they first stop breaking the law and acknowledge that is what they have done.  (This would willingly be done by illegal aliens wanting to live the Oath of Allegiance: “I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law…”)  They are fined a non-trivial amount (perhaps a few thousand dollars) for having broken the law and pay any taxes that would be owed had they been in the country legally.  Those that do not report themselves as illegal aliens, if caught, are fined and charged the cost of deportation.  They are deported.  They are clearly rejecting the Oath of Allegiance.  (See priorities 2 and 3.)

• Businesses are responsible for the people they employ.  Businesses that employ illegal aliens are fined a substantial amount for each such employee—perhaps the equivalence of the annual pay for each illegal alien—and the business pays appropriate taxes that would have applied had the employees been legal.  It is not only illegal but unfair to law-abiding businesses in the same industry for some to employ illegal aliens.  The punishment must be significant.  (See priority 3.)

• Illegal aliens who wish to become U.S. citizens, after paying their fine, can begin the legal process towards citizenship.  The full legal process must be followed with no reductions in time, cost, sponsorship requirements, etc. No credit is given for time already spent here.  It is patently unfair to be advantaged for having broken the law.  The American people have shown (in 2006 and 2007) they are overwhelmingly against anything approaching amnesty for unremorseful lawbreakers—continuing an illegal act is proof of no remorse.  To be clear, there is amnesty involved if an illegal alien has a more desirable path—simpler, quicker, less expensive, or less demanding—to becoming a United States citizen than a person who has not yet started the legal process towards citizenship. The legal immigration process may be delayed for some individuals depending on the number of people from their country of origin that are currently applying for U.S. citizenship.  This creates an incentive to move quickly into the process.  (See priorities 2 and 3.)

• Illegal aliens who want to reside and work here temporarily but not become U.S. citizens can apply for participation in a guest worker program.  Guest workers must be sponsored by a business and the business must give priority to U.S. citizens who are willing and qualified to do the work at the same pay.  Legal aliens can only be part of the guest worker program for a finite amount of time—perhaps 6 to 10 years—after which they could no longer reside in the U.S. unless they are in the process of becoming U.S. citizens.  Allowing illegal aliens to displace American workers reduces Americans’ liberty and pursuit of happiness.  (See priority 1.)

• Illegal aliens who want to reside here for an indefinite period but not become U.S. citizens or guest workers are not supported.  An alien residing in the U.S. is either here temporarily (e.g., visiting as a tourist or attending school), on a path towards citizenship, or is a guest worker.  Illegal aliens that are a financial burden to American citizens or that pose a criminal threat, reduce Americans’ liberty and pursuit of happiness.  (See priority 1.)

  

3) Reducing the likelihood of an immigration problem resurfacing

• Technically, if illegal aliens can’t find employment in the U.S. and the risk of being caught, fined, and deported is high, there is little need for a “wall” along the U.S. borders to keep such aliens from entering the country.  However, because enforcement may wane under various administrations and circumstances—to the detriment of American priorities—and because illegal aliens that intend to hurt America from within (i.e., terrorists) can currently cross our borders with impunity; there is a need to secure our borders.  The boundary to control border crossings can be part physical (fences, walls) and part virtual (drones, satellites, patrols, cameras, sensors) and can change over time with new technologies and to strengthen places found to be inadequately secured.  (See priorities 1, 2 and 3.)

• The law whereby anyone born in this country is automatically a U.S. citizen is changed such that a child born to a woman who is in this country illegally is not a U.S. citizen.  Being an illegal alien, taking advantage of this country’s medical facilities and policies to birth a baby, then wanting special consideration for these acts by appealing to the need to preserve family ties (“if you kick me out, you separate me from my American child”) is unethical.  It is also unfair to alien families who didn’t birth a baby in this country and therefore were less exploitative.  (See priority 3.)

An example “first steps implementation” of the above framework could be done over a period of a few months.  During that time, announced as a 3 or 6 month period, there is a significant emphasis placed on securing the border.  All high traffic areas are intensely monitored or strongly “walled.”  The federal government demonstrates publicly that if it wants to, it can secure the border. 

During this same period federal, state, and local governments apply significant effort to catch, fine, and deport illegal aliens and to identify and fine businesses that hire them.  This demonstrates that government can find illegal aliens and law-breaking businesses and punish them for their crimes. 

During this period, illegal aliens have the opportunity to identify themselves as such.  They would be fined and can seek to enter the legal immigration process for citizenship or the guest worker program.  After that initial few months period, illegal aliens (i.e., those who have not reported themselves as such and entered the citizenship process or guest worker program), face a heftier fine and a greater likelihood of deportation when they do come forward.  They can still seek to enter the legal citizenship process or guest worker program until those programs are full for their country of origin.

Additional considerations for those seeking to include amnesty in reform legislation

This proposed framework would be embraced by a significant majority of U.S. citizens because it provides comprehensive immigration reform and honors American priorities.  It is likely that many, for emotional not rational reasons, would consider it too harsh on illegal aliens.  Here are a few considerations for those who want some form of amnesty for illegal aliens while avoiding the use of the “A-word” (being purposefully imprecise in their terminology—making what they want and why they want it suspect): 

• Illegal aliens have committed a federal crime.  By current law they can be fined and receive up to six months in prison.  This proposal applies a fine but allows them to remain in the U.S. either on a path to citizenship or as a guest worker.  It is clearly less harsh than current law.

• Illegal aliens are financially disruptive if not a drain on American citizens.  They either displace American workers or are working below wages acceptable to citizens, skewing market costs. 

• Any so-called “benefits” provided by the presence of illegal aliens were not sought by the majority of Americans.  Most Americans don’t want handouts.  The illegal aliens did not come here to give but to get.  They aren’t to be rewarded for that nor are Americans obliged to thank them for giving us something we didn’t want.  When Americans express their desire for illegal aliens to leave and follow legal immigration processes—what Americans really want—the illegal aliens aren't willing to do that. 

• Hundreds of illegal aliens caught crossing the U.S. border are from nations that sponsor terrorism.  There are illegal aliens from Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan, and Yemen in a federal detention center near Phoenix, Arizona.  The looser the border the more terrorists that will cross it.  The fact that the federal government is aware of these terrorist crossings but has done little to eliminate them is a blatant disregard of all three American priorities and a dereliction of its Constitutional duty..

• In his first inaugural address in 2007, Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon blasted U.S. immigration policies saying, “Mexico does not end at its borders…. Where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.”  Arrogance rooted in ignorance, nay, stupidity.  It is as if every Mexican is a Louis XIV.  “L'État, c'est moi” (“I am the State”).

• One of the most memorable lines from any American President is John Kennedy’s, “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.”  From the mouth of an illegal alien it becomes, “And so my fellow unfairly treated non-Americans, demand acceptance and benefits from this country whose laws you broke and continue to break while feeling free to dishonor and demean her.”  A willingness to accept such guests in our country, let alone enable them to become citizens, is magnanimous. 

• When illegal aliens and those that want them treated as citizens, if not heroic figures, hold rallies for greater rights and acceptance one frequently sees the mocking of America, claims that large portions of the United States are rightfully part of Mexico, the celebration of foreign countries above the U.S., and violence.   (Regarding the latter, in Santa Cruz, California, participants in a May Day 2010 rally started a riot that caused $100,000 of property damage.  On that day in San Francisco, supporters of the Arizona law were attacked.)  All of these run counter to American priorities.  Into the teeth of disrespect for and dishonoring of America and its citizens by illegal aliens and their most ardent supporters, this proposal charitably offers forgiveness and acceptance. 

In October of 1994 there was a large protest march against California’s “Save Our State” initiative, Proposition 187.  The ballot initiative sought to create a screening system to prohibit illegal aliens from using health care, public education, and other social services in California. The law was initially passed by the voters but found unconstitutional by a federal court.

The 1994 California march and immigration reform marches in 2006 prominently displayed Spanish language signage and Mexican and Central American national flags with far fewer United States’ flags.  These were counterproductive to the marchers’ intent.  Senator John McCain warned the Hispanic community about a possible backlash if "too many Hispanic flags - and not enough American flags - are at these protests."  Future marches tended to include many more Stars and Stripes and signs written in English, though the U.S. flags seemed out of place given the text on the placards.

Why would someone hold up signs like these and also endorse waving the flag of the United States of America?  

Why would someone with a U.S. flag march with folks holding these signs?  

Why is that woman carrying the U.S. flag draped over her arm in an inappropriate manner?  

It seems the United States flag is being used as a prop.

This image added for sanity reasons.

In light of these considerations, there seems to be no part of the proposed framework that is less than fair. 

An only partly tongue in cheek final thought.  If illegal aliens boycott Arizona because of its immigration law, then by passing a comparable law in every state perhaps we can have illegal aliens boycott every state—after which the U.S. would be free of illegal aliens.