January 08, 2004
Immigration reform
Lots of commentary the last few days on immigration reform proposed by President Bush. A few summaries:
- Calpundit thinks that it's mostly smoke and mirrors to woo Hispanics in an election year.
- XRLQ is on the fence, mainly because he feels that it will tend to encourage more illegals to come in. He's also a bit peeved at Professor Bainbridge.
- Professor Bainbridge is all for it, and thinks the oppostion is irrational.
- Pat Buchanan is really upset, as are Bill O'Reilley and much of the National Review (and here and here)
- Andrew Sullivan is way in favor.
- The New York Times thinks it's mostly political.
My take is that it's not the right method. I'm kind of in XRLQ's camp on this. It's obvious that the situation cannot be controlled by mass expulsions, and in any event the level of police activity and civil liberty violation would be way past my point of comfort. War on Drugs squared. So some kind of legalization of the current illegals, without penalizing those entering legally, is necessary.
What bothers me with the Bush proposal is that the proposed plan borrows from several past mistakes. Kind of like the old joke about bi-partisan legislation being both stupid AND evil. We need to do this entirely differently, as the USA is the destination of choice for nearly everyone seeking a place where excellence and ambition are rewarded. We need to reinforce that, while making future illegal entry unattractive by comparison. So, a modest proposal:
There is no quota on immigration -- anyone who can get here may enter, work, travel, etc, subject to the following conditions:
- The US may refuse any entrant.
- The price of entry is $10,000 cash, per person, prior to entry. This applies to anyone who is not a citizen, whether or not spouses, parents, children, etc, are already here.
- The entrant agrees to provide biometric samples as required by US or state authorities.
- The entrant agrees not to apply for any means-tested govenment benefit for 7 years.
- The applicant agrees that s/he may be deported without further process upon conviction of a felony or violent misdemenor, before or after a prison term has been served.
- The applicant agrees to inform the government as to their residence until such time as they obtain citizenship.
- The entrant agrees to pay all taxes due, and that failure to do so is cause for expulsion and confiscation of assets.
- The applicant agrees to co-operate fully in any national security investigation, and that failure to do so may result in immediate deportation.
- The applicant agrees that, for them, membership in any organization advocating or conducting attacks on the US, its citizens or soldiers, wherever situated, is a felony punishable by 10 years imprisonment, and that they may be held without bail if so charged.
- Any person now residing in the US illegally may receive amnesty by entering this program, so long as they are not currently in custody for any reason.
- Any person who is deported for immigration law violations is permanently barred from US entry.
- Current legal residents are not affected by this program.
UPDATE:
Citizen Smash has a good list of links on the topic
Posted by Kevin Murphy at January 8, 2004 01:53 PM
| TrackBack
$10,000 to come to the United States? I thought these people were coming here because they NEEDED money!
Some may come for that, although I think the welfare-seeking immigrant is better advised to enter France or Canada.
Most come because they want opportunity, pay smugglers large fees to get in illegally, and work their butts off once here. I'd rather let the these in and keep the deadwood out.
They could always finance the $10,000, either through a bank, or if none will front them the money, then through an unsubsidized government loan, which could not be discharged in bankruptcy, and for which a default (say, three months in arrears) would lead to instant deportation.
Originally I thought there was something in your list I disagreed with (namely, the $10K price tag) but upon further reflection I think this is a pretty good idea. I don't see why we have immigration quotas -- there were no quotas when my people came over, even though the Irish were pretty widely reviled. Most anti-immigrant groups now can't compete with the vituperation against the Irish in the 19th century.
This is the kind of open immigration I think many people would support. The $10K would be hard to sell in general, though the obvious name for this entry fee would be "processing fee" to pay for the tracking and enforcing open immigration would require.
Obviously, to get this to work, we've got to enforce the immigration laws strictly so that it's much more costly to try to get around controls (and to keep those deported from re-entering).
The main reason for the "entry fee" for those planning on staying, is to recognize the extreme infrastructure investment (schools, roads, hospitals, etc) that has already been made.
There really should be a charge for someone getting the benefits of 100 years of public taxation and investment, and failing to do this will, IMHO, doom any attempt to discard the present, broken, system.
Now, the amount is a round number, and can be quibbled with, but it needs to be high enough to discourage leeches from entry, while being low enough that it does not bar anyone coming to work and prosper.
$10K is not a fortune, and nearly anyone can accumulate that over time, especially if it can be privately financed and paid after entry. College loans are a more severe burden. Yet it will discourage those who intend to become public burdens (a minority now, but without quotas....).